0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The ubiquity of consciousness is a universal phenomenon;All living organisms are conscious entities; Artificial intelligence cannot reproduce the metaphysical experience of reality;
If AI can pass a Turing test then it's indistinguishable from a human.
You'd have to come up with a test to see if the AI has "metaphysical" qualities,
... AI based philosophical zombie only compare tables made of 0 and 1 and if they match ... is something else that gives us "there is something is it like"-ness of the subjective experience?
Even if a robot passes the Turing test, it will not be aware that it has passed the Turing test.
Is consciousness a metaphysical experience of reality?
The ubiquity of consciousness is a universal phenomenon;
All living organisms are conscious entities;
This suggests that if and when a computer demonstrates that it is conscious, you would be willing to consider it a "living organism"?
It's possible to create a software model of neurones ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_networkIf you had enough of them you could model the human brain ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mindSo the computer-model would have all of the properties & abilities of an actual brain , ( whatever names you want to give them ). Computer emulator software is proof of this concept.
QuoteThe ubiquity of consciousness is a universal phenomenon;Turing machines are universal machines; why shouldn't they be able to display universal phenomena?
For a robot or AI to pass the Turing test, it has to be able to recall and react to recent events, including the prior content of the conversation.This certainly seems to me to be an awareness that it had passed the Turing test!
Quote from: RD on 17/12/2015 14:44:19It's possible to create a software model of neurones ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_networkIf you had enough of them you could model the human brain ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mindSo the computer-model would have all of the properties & abilities of an actual brain , ( whatever names you want to give them ). Computer emulator software is proof of this concept.But that has nothing to do with consciousness, your comments and links seem to me off-topic.
... A computer have no internal teleology ...
The unconscious center is called the inner self. This is what all animals have and is connected to natural instinct, human nature and the DNA. Humans have an additional center called the conscious mind/ego. This appears to be more connected to language. Free will is the ability to make choices different from the inner self. But to practice free will, we need to be aware of the choices of the inner self, to differentiate our own choices. As long as one is not aware of the secondary, you don't have free choice, but only choice. As long as these two centers are unconsciously merged in the mind, due to cultural conditioning, the inner self is projected outside ourselves so we can become aware; indirectly. This is often felt to be a metaphysical connection to reality, where there is no apparent physical connection using the existing laws of science. Science can't see it but one can feel it.
The human can do more than an ape.
Turning machines (and finite feed-forward ANN) cannot solve the halting problem. Our minds can do it...
A computer have no internal teleology, therefore it cannot resolve 2+2=5.
only a living being could possibly solve... using imagination
If that computer is programmed with binary logic, then it must use mathematics to solve the problem.
If that computer is programmed with binary logic, then it must use mathematics to solve the problem. Mathematics however cannot solve problems dealing with the metaphysics of reality. Thus only a living being could possibly solve 2+2=5 using imagination, a property of the mind which allow one to bend the physical lawsof sentience.
'to bend the physical laws of sentience' sounds like pseudo-profound BS - a Chopra-esque deepity - unless, of course, you can explain what these physical laws are (why not show the maths while you're at it), and how they can be 'bent' 
... dead molecules ...
... I meant that imagination allows one to resolve the ubiquity of consciousness using metaphysical freedom.
A computer based on algorithmics have no imagination, no emotions, and no consciousness.
The pseudo-profound BS in my humble opinion is that artificial intelligence could ever create from dead molecules a conscious being.
these can virtualised on a digital algorithmic ...
QuoteOne will never get wet from a simulation of rain. To get wet you still need real rain.
One will never get wet from a simulation of rain. To get wet you still need real rain.
... it were possible to hack into someone's nervous-system it would be possible to accurately simulate any experience , (including wetness).
A few thoughts about AI:Could an AI computer feel sorrow or regret when faced with an error of it's own making?Could an AI computer fall in love with another AI computer without being instructed to do so?Could an AI computer appreciate art to the extent that it could distinguish between beauty and ugliness also without instruction?And lastly, could an AI computer enjoy the activity of "playing" even though the "playing" had no specific profit or progress as it's goal?I frankly don't know the answers to these questions myself and I would hazard a guess that it's highly unlikely that definitive answers to these questions will ever be answered with any degree of certainty.
Could an AI computer appreciate art to the extent that it could distinguish between beauty and ugliness also without instruction?
Could an AI computer appreciate art?
Could an AI computer feel sorrow or regret when faced with an error of it's own making?
could an AI computer enjoy the activity of "playing" even though the "playing" had no specific profit or progress as it's goal?
A rich and welcoming play environment produces more innovated and interested adults who are self-motivated to learn new things. We need to approach this with AIs that are continually self-motivated to learn.
Current AI learning algorithms (like backpropagation) do change behavior, but don't rely on emotional states.
I believe John Searle said something like:One will never get wet from a simulation of rain. To get wet you still need real rain.
my belief is that: 1. A Turning Machine will never generate consciousnesses, because it is an insufficient physical state/structure for such task. Similar with "China Nation" experiment.
A Turing Machine will never generate consciousnesses, because it is an insufficient physical state/structure for such task.
Join together 100 billion neurons—with 100 trillion connections—and you have yourself a human brain
Can you explain this? It seems to me that the 'China Nation' thought experiment simply describes a human brain on a large scale...
in 2014 was 1 chip that holds 1 million neurons and 256 million connections, or about 1/400,000 of a brain.Cobble together 10,000 of these chips in a data warehouse, and you have 1/40 of a brain.
...I suspect that aware percept necessitate so tight restrictions on the underpinning physical substrate that only neurons have it and silicon or china brain does not.
What is "1/40 of a brain" even supposed to mean?
China Brain...Will there be consciousness out of the ensemble of people? If yes of whom? Of a new individual or the consciousness of the person (whose pattern is imitated)?
But why do you suspect this? What properties of the substrate do you think might be relevant? (because if we know the relevant properties, we can include them in the emulation).
(because if we know the relevant properties, we can include them in the emulation).
Suppose we approach it from another direction, and, say, imagine a thought experiment, where we develop artificial programmable neurons that can emulate the behaviour and connectivity of any neuron in the brain (chemical sensors & effectors also allow it to respond to and modify the chemical environment around it, just like a biological neuron). So we scan someone's brain (a willing volunteer!), identifying every neuron and it's connections, and measuring how each one behaves; then we start replacing them, one by one, with the artificial electronic neurons, programmed to behave identically. Assume each replacement replicates the relevant behaviour of the original exactly.Do you think there will come a point in this cell-by-cell replacement when the volunteer will no longer be recognisably conscious, despite there being no functional change in his brain? If so, can you explain why you think so?
Because we can solve the tiling problem or halting problem for cases computers (i.e. Turning Machines) cannot do it....Our minds can identify and solve (for simple cases) problems that computers/TM cannot solve, and we can even explain why this is the case.
With current (or near future) technology a likely outcome is that the ‘volunteer’ will start developing dementia-like syndromes progressing as the replacement of neurons occurs.
If we get a zombie then we lost some physics, likely at quantum level. Quantum mechanics (QM) is working in anything by e.g. holding atoms together, without QM atoms e- will fall into nucleus, but the question is: is QM directly involved in consciousness? As QM demonstrably play a direct direct role in biology (photosynthesis and taste), I find it hard to believe it is not involved directly in such a special and important process such the aware-ing/conscious-ing of the reality.
Speculations aside and based on what we know, direct involvement of QM can provide inside our brains two things: i) a more efficient energy transfer from point to point (due to electronic or vibrational states extended over many atoms)
ii) faster Turning Machine computations if the results of those computations somehow survive from picoseconds to tens of miliseconds in order to be interfaced with the timescales of NN classical processes – the missmatch of decoherece timescales is a loooong shot but maybe nature found a way.
..if the QM is directly involved in the process of consciousness (via e.g. space-extended electronic states or quantum vibrational states on certain parts of neurons) then it dramatically restrict the molecular substrate that can be used, and the artificial neuron may have to be very similar to natural one in order to reproduce the quantum states directly involved in conscious -ness (-ing).
It is conceivable to end up with a artificial NN that imitates perfectly at the classically describable level of interneuronal connections the original natural NN but it completely misses to generate some quantum states of the natural NN because the ANN does not have the right physical configuration. If those missed quantum states are essential to consciousness then ANN is a mindless machine even if at classical and interneuronal connection level imitates perfectly the natural NN
We can't yet define precisely what we mean by consciousness, so it's not really surprising that we don't yet know how it works.
The EU funded Human Brain Project is aiming to create a neuron emulation faithful to molecular scales... So far, their very limited emulations of parts of biological brains (of rats), have behaved just like their biological counterparts;