• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
keyfeatures said:
One big flaw with the Turing test...does the success of an imitation prove it is the thing?
Click to expand...
That all depends what you think the Turing test is supposed to do. Turing said that consistently passing would suggest that it was reasonable to say the machine was 'thinking'. Current ideas on the Turing test are quite well covered here.
 
dlorde said:
That all depends what you think the Turing test is supposed to do. Turing said that consistently passing would suggest that it was reasonable to say the machine was 'thinking'. Current ideas on the Turing test are quite well covered here.
Click to expand...


Which is an incorrect assumption. Differently generated data can give the same perceived information to a subjective observer. Consistently passing would merely show the level at which different data would be perceived as intelligent by a human. Same reason people see Mother Theresa's face in a piece of burnt toast.

Perhaps a more worrying version are humans that appear to be like computers. The way some posters repeat the same thing over and over and don't appear to be able to correctly interpret other posts or engage with them could lead one to suspect...:)
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
Which is an incorrect assumption. Differently generated data can give the same perceived information to a subjective observer. Consistently passing would merely show the level at which different data would be perceived as intelligent by a human. Same reason people see Mother Theresa's face in a piece of burnt toast.
Click to expand...
I think we should assume (as the article suggests) assume that, "in order to get decent evidence that there is no more than a 70% chance that a machine will be correctly identified as a machine after five minutes of conversation, there will have to be a reasonably large number of trials".

Are you saying you don't think it possible to assess whether something is thinking by talking to it?
 
Leumas said:
...
I think this situation is a TELLTALE of how the brain works as opposed to programmed machines.

Could it perhaps be due to the positive and negative feedback loops of all the sensory input and output signals combined from within and without the brain with the attenuation, convolution, augmentation, reverberation, initiation and relaying of electrochemical signals combined with cross talk and cross sparking between various and all parts of the closely INTERTWINED and CONVOLUTED BUNDLE of matter called the brain giving rise to evermore feedback?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I'm not being snarky: Are you saying that it is impossible that a computer/robot could ever be made that does all of that stuff? All the feedback and signals going back and forth etc? I agree that we don't seem to have any at the moment, but is it impossible in principle?
 
dlorde said:
I think we should assume (as the article suggests) assume that, "in order to get decent evidence that there is no more than a 70% chance that a machine will be correctly identified as a machine after five minutes of conversation, there will have to be a reasonably large number of trials".

Are you saying you don't think it possible to assess whether something is thinking by talking to it?
Click to expand...
Do you believe the Jeopardy champion computer is thinking rather than furnishing table-look-up rote responses after negotiating many if/then statements and database lookups?

I'd say no, that doesn't necessarily answer the 'Is it thinking?' question.
 
westprog said:
Tell me what the difference is and I'll see if I agree. Of course computers are different to other things that aren't computers. Everything is different to what it isn't the same thing as. The question is the nature of the qualitative difference. It's up to the proponents of such a difference to indicate its nature.
Click to expand...

You must've missed it. Computers compute.

And now it means non-alive. That's not to say that all life is necessarily conscious - but there's no reason to suppose that anything not alive is conscious in any way.
Click to expand...

It all depends on your definition of "conscious". What is it ?
 
dlorde said:
Are you saying you don't think it possible to assess whether something is thinking by talking to it?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by talking. Depends what you mean by thinking. No doubt different people would have different levels of assessment - just as specialists who can spot a forged/copied artwork might spot a faux Monet more readily than a member of the general public. Someone with knowhow regarding how a computer might have been programmed to construct language would most likely be harder to fool.

Cleverbot claims to be 59percent human but it's pretty easy to tell you're not chatting to a human imho.
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
Just to clarify, I'm not being snarky: Are you saying that it is impossible that a computer/robot could ever be made that does all of that stuff? All the feedback and signals going back and forth etc? I agree that we don't seem to have any at the moment, but is it impossible in principle?
Click to expand...

IF that were ever possible it would be prevented by ethical considerations.
 
Belz... said:
It's not very useful to discuss the possibility of machine consciousness when you, as you do here, assume that machines can't be conscious to begin with.
Click to expand...

To subjectively observe is not necessarily to be conscious. I don't think the term 'conscious' has been adequately defined to decide whether we actually have it, let alone whether machines might be able to have it. I'm ignostic on consciousness.
 
Belz... said:
How do you know ?
Click to expand...

Because if it were you wouldn't need input gathering. I'm not saying computers can't be fed inputs, but they're not fed them in the same way humans are fed them. This is just one of the reasons they don't think like humans. It takes more than a human brain to think like a human.
 
AlBell said:
Do you believe the Jeopardy champion computer is thinking rather than furnishing table-look-up rote responses after negotiating many if/then statements and database lookups?

I'd say no, that doesn't necessarily answer the 'Is it thinking?' question.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think the human jeopardy champion is demonstrating the finest, most human thinking either. People are easily impressed by factual recall, large sums and fancy chess moves. None of these are very impressive compared to the rest of the stuff the human mind does on a daily basis. The only reason we find them so is they are relatively unusual - whilst walking, cooking a meal, getting dressed or falling in love are all pretty common events.
 
keyfeatures said:
IF that were ever possible it would be prevented by ethical considerations.
Click to expand...

What?

Imagine some mad genius at some future time who may not be constrained by the ethical considerations of a University Ethics Comittee.

What would make it impossible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom