Explain consciousness to the layman.

[annnnoid]

I don't really see an issue with the quality of the intelligence of an AI being dependent on the intelligence, skills and abilities of the people that develop it; it seems trivially obvious. The quality of human intelligence is partially dependent on inherited traits. So what?

So what?!?!?! Perhaps you should try answering that question I left for Mr. Scott.

Some of the issues 1)…we do not have anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what you refer to as the ‘intelligence, skills, and abilities of the people that develop it’ (however much those same people may be convinced otherwise) and / or what is the fundamental meaning / purpose of these ‘people’….and 2) the constant trivialization of the identity of ‘people’ as a consequence of the assumption that the ingredients of this identity can be so easily instantiated in some variety of AI (either individually or collectively)… and 3) your side of the debate seems constantly to want to present the situation as if it (this dependence) IS trivial….to believe that you’ve created some new kind of life or something (…’ look, it can do things I didn’t expect, that I didn’t tell it to do’…meaning…what?)…like the fact that it IS fundamentally connected to human beings is an inconvenience and something that you wish could be changed (which would mean…what?).

 

[westprog]

Science progresses. It is figuring out more and more stuff that seemed mysterious before, every day. We know a lot about how consciousness works already. Much more than you suspect.

That sounds like something Blofeld would say. "Our researches into consciousness have advanced a great deal, Mr Bond. Much more than you suspect. Soon we will have advanced beyond Jeopardy into The Weakest Link".

If you think there is a metaphysical, incomputable aspect to it, come out of the closet and say so (and explain why you are so sure).

Note the assumption that incomputable = metaphysical. There's no necessary connection between the two, but it's an article of faith that they are the same.

 

[rocketdodger]

post #4472 rocketdodger

I missed this one yesterday - think you must have been editing it. Interesting info. However, the reason I bring up the issue of paradoxes is a theory that the binary bits of 0,1 significantly miss the oscillatory potential of four value bits, significantly, the paradox value i. Qubits are possibly closer to this, but I'm not sure if they really represent the 0,1,-1,i values that maybe exist in human cognition. I could be wrong. In terms of form influencing function, however, this could be a significant difference.

It could be, but in my opinion that is a very weak "could."

I am -- as are all the people actually doing research on the matter -- pretty confident that the relevant functionality is entirely at the neural activation level, and anything smaller than this is simply how biology supports neural activation and is irrelevant as far as consciousness goes.

That isn't to say anyone is 100% sure that things like Penrose's microtuble nonsense might play some role in consciousness, it is just saying that we are 100% sure it doesn't play some role in consciousness that isn't wrapped up into the simple action of the neuron already, an action that we know is easy to emulate/simulate.

 

[annnnoid]

Science progresses. It is figuring out more and more stuff that seemed mysterious before, every day. We know a lot about how consciousness works already. Much more than you suspect.

If you think there is a metaphysical, incomputable aspect to it, come out of the closet and say so (and explain why you are so sure).

Ahhh....the old 'science progresses' argument. Meaning, in principle, we'll figure out a way to travel to the edge of the universe....sometime before the edge of the universe disappears altogether.

What we ‘know’ about consciousness seems very much to depend on who you talk to. Earlier I presented a quote (which apparently represented the consensus of the global cog sci community) which seems to very clearly support what Chomsky said: “ Our understanding is thin and likely to remain so.” You may be convinced otherwise. I notice you didn’t answer the question.

As for this ‘come out of the closet' BS….give me an ***** break! I have absolutely no doubt what-so-ever that there are ingredients to who / what we are that science doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of. There is mountains of evidence that support this. I remember some while ago I deposited dozens and dozens of links on a JREF thread leading to very substantial discussions of the issues. Not a single participant followed any of them up (as was obvious by the discussion that followed). This shows me the degree to which most skeptics are actually interested in the evidence. But to be fair....it's not just that skeptics are biased or lazy, that's obviously a generalization....the fact is the issues are vast and complex and some things just don't matter to everybody all the time.

As for metaphysical /supernatural / woo / spirituality / whatever….these are things for which there is no definition or understanding…except within the vocabulary of human experience…which science, at this point, has very little to say about. I can insist that ‘they’ happen…you can insist that they don’t. I could explain them to you, but I can’t understand them for you. Another time, another thread perhaps.

 

[annnnoid]

Ah, but given human psychology is a result of physical processes, we could change this also. Behaviour is driven by neurohormones (as rewards). For example, the attachment to life, empathy, pain avoidance. We assume these are enduring conditions. I'd say they are (currently), what makes us human. We fear those without all of them intact (psychopaths). But if you start understanding them, there is no reason why you couldn't change them. I have to admit, I find the whole concept unsettling, though fascinating.

Human psychology is quite obviously the result of something that we have a limited empirical understanding of (as Chomsky pointed out: ‘ Our understanding is thin and likely to remain so.’ ). What we do have is an ‘intuitive’ understanding (the ‘university of life’). A ‘human’ epistemology (like what Kaggen described). I ‘know who I am’ is obviously not a scientific statement, but it is an expression of an encounter with truth (the only phenomenon that a human being can encounter that isn’t a model of something else). To put it very simply…there is a feeling of certainty about a condition (thus we have fundamental words / meanings like honesty, trust, integrity....which, themselves, describe fundamental features of this thing we call 'consciousness'). I think understanding is in the eye of the beholder…and perhaps no one else…except, perhaps, whatever ‘intelligence’ we are a function of.

I always like to quote David Fincher at times like this: “You’re in charge, you’re not in control….anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts!”

As for ‘changing’ our states….quite obviously, we…both individually and collectively…already influence our ‘states’ everywhere all the time. Is there ever a moment when we’re not under the influence of some kind of … influence?...be it direct chemical interactions (legal / illegal drugs, every variety of chemical contained in what we consume) or indirect influences (…social / domestic conditions [poverty / wealth / peace / conflict…etc. > infinity). IOW…we’re all always on some kind of ‘drugs’. The point …and what is important when considering this idea of ‘changing’ our psychology…is whether there is some kind of optimum / balanced / ideal state? This is obviously not merely an academic question since it comes up frequently and tangibly in courtrooms when a psychological assessment is performed on any accused (it comes up just about everywhere all the time in one form or another but that is an obvious example). It’s also a question that science does not seem to like to tangle with…partly because human affairs cannot be scientifically quantified (a verdict of ‘unfit to stand trial’ is often more an expert opinion than a scientific conclusion)…and partly because woo-like issues begin sprouting all over the place. What we all seem to intuitively ‘know’ is that there is a vast and complex continuum ranging from inept to capable.

My description of an achievement at the far-capable end of the continuum might be something like this: The ability to understand that you don’t understand that you don’t understand understanding.

The result might sound something like this quote:

“ Destruction is finding being in matter.”

IOW…understanding. A simple thing perhaps, but it seems getting there can be an agonizingly complex process (a process which, incidentally, is assisted immeasurably in the being of a wife of beyond indescribable qualities [there is a word for love]…kind of tangential to our local thread but, as they say, what dreams may come!).

 

[AlBell]

Yes, this is correct. More research has been done on animal vision systems than all other parts of the brain combined, so you can bank on it.

Thanks. Damn shame that at least in my brain the link to name takes a lot longer or doesn't work at all.

I will elaborate tomorrow.

I look forward to it.

 

[dlorde]

So what?!?!?! Perhaps you should try answering that question I left for Mr. Scott.

Which question did you have in mind?

we do not have anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what you refer to as the ‘intelligence, skills, and abilities of the people that develop it’

Yet we manage to develop ever more capable systems, and learn more about intelligence, skills, and abilities. Your point is?

what is the fundamental meaning / purpose of these ‘people’

Their contextual purpose would appear to be making intelligent systems. You'd have to ask them what other meanings or purposes they have.

the constant trivialization of the identity of ‘people’ as a consequence of the assumption that the ingredients of this identity can be so easily instantiated in some variety of AI (either individually or collectively)

You may feel it trivialises people's identity (why?), but that's your problem. I doubt there are many who believe it is easy to instantiate ingredients of identity in an AI; if it was easy, more progresss would have been made.

your side of the debate seems constantly to want to present the situation as if it (this dependence) IS trivial….to believe that you’ve created some new kind of life or something (…’ look, it can do things I didn’t expect, that I didn’t tell it to do’…meaning…what?)…like the fact that it IS fundamentally connected to human beings is an inconvenience and something that you wish could be changed (which would mean…what?).

I don't recognise that characterisation at all. 'Trivially obvious' doesn't mean trivial, it means 'any fule kno'; of course what we make is dependent on our making it. What makes you think anyone wants to pretend otherwise? but if they did, so what?

 

[keyfeatures]

The point …and what is important when considering this idea of ‘changing’ our psychology…is whether there is some kind of optimum / balanced / ideal state? This is obviously not merely an academic question since it comes up frequently and tangibly in courtrooms when a psychological assessment is performed on any accused (it comes up just about everywhere all the time in one form or another but that is an obvious example). It’s also a question that science does not seem to like to tangle with…partly because human affairs cannot be scientifically quantified (a verdict of ‘unfit to stand trial’ is often more an expert opinion than a scientific conclusion)…and partly because woo-like issues begin sprouting all over the place. What we all seem to intuitively ‘know’ is that there is a vast and complex continuum ranging from inept to capable.

Well Sam Harris certainly got himself in a spin with a mentalist moral compass. There is no objective morality. Moral values are subjective. Only averaged out by millions of genotypes expressed over time. When these boil down to genetics responding to drugs (as you say), you find that if you change the genetics (or drugs), the average response changes. You could, theoretically, tweak people to choose death and mutual destruction in greater numbers. Although this would probably require an ad campaign more cunning than Just Do It fobbing-off fat people shoes as fitness fodder. Or perhaps mass stupidity. We know large numbers have never been persuaded to do dumb things though, don't we.

 

[Belz...]

I've noticed that you're very quick to claim that when people depart from the destination you think appropriate for the discussion, that they are "missing the point", that they are confused, that they are losing track.

No, just you. And that's because in this sequence:

Post 1 from Belz...
Reply 2 from Westprog
Reply 3 from Belz...
Reply 4 from Westprog

...Your response in 4 is completely unrelated to what was posted in 1 and 2, and only superficially answers 3, so I can only conclude that you forgot what 1 and 2 were all about. Since you do this repeatedly, I also conclude that you have trouble keeping track of threads. Your claim that you're simply not following what I think you should be saying is a dodge at best.

Often this is because they are failing to fall in line and accepting what you think are compelling arguments.

Not because they are not accepting my argument, or even ignoring them, but because they're not even in the same conversation.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Ahhh....the old 'science progresses' argument. Meaning, in principle, we'll figure out a way to travel to the edge of the universe....sometime before the edge of the universe disappears altogether.

Straw man.

What we ‘know’ about consciousness seems very much to depend on who you talk to. Earlier I presented a quote (which apparently represented the consensus of the global cog sci community) which seems to very clearly support what Chomsky said: “ Our understanding is thin and likely to remain so.” You may be convinced otherwise. I notice you didn’t answer the question.

Your question bored me. It doesn't illuminate anything about consciousness.

As for this ‘come out of the closet' BS….give me an ***** break! I have absolutely no doubt what-so-ever that there are ingredients to who / what we are that science doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of. There is mountains of evidence that support this. I remember some while ago I deposited dozens and dozens of links on a JREF thread leading to very substantial discussions of the issues. Not a single participant followed any of them up (as was obvious by the discussion that followed). This shows me the degree to which most skeptics are actually interested in the evidence. But to be fair....it's not just that skeptics are biased or lazy, that's obviously a generalization....the fact is the issues are vast and complex and some things just don't matter to everybody all the time.

You weren't reprimanded for flooding?

Share with us just one piece of this mountain of evidence you claim exists. Not something random and weak. What's the strongest piece of evidence you've got?

The funny thing is that when woos are asked to DEMONSTRATE the existence of the woo they believe in, they can't, so there's nothing for science to explain. (If this statement is wrong, illuminate me, then apply for the million dollars, will you?)

Actually, science very successfully explains metaphysical delusions. Read up on it! It will give you tools to help distinguish between what's only in your imagination, and what's real.

As for metaphysical /supernatural / woo / spirituality / whatever….these are things for which there is no definition or understanding…except within the vocabulary of human experience…which science, at this point, has very little to say about. I can insist that ‘they’ happen…you can insist that they don’t. I could explain them to you, but I can’t understand them for you. Another time, another thread perhaps.

I like to say that if you can't demonstrate that something isn't just in your head, then it's just in your head. In other words, imaginary.

The metaphysical epiphenomenal aspect of consciousness is just in your head. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[annnnoid]

Which question did you have in mind?

Yet we manage to develop ever more capable systems, and learn more about intelligence, skills, and abilities. Your point is?

Their contextual purpose would appear to be making intelligent systems. You'd have to ask them what other meanings or purposes they have.

You may feel it trivialises people's identity (why?), but that's your problem. I doubt there are many who believe it is easy to instantiate ingredients of identity in an AI; if it was easy, more progresss would have been made.

I don't recognise that characterisation at all. 'Trivially obvious' doesn't mean trivial, it means 'any fule kno'; of course what we make is dependent on our making it. What makes you think anyone wants to pretend otherwise? but if they did, so what?

…so what…who cares…the point…etc.

There have been a number of polls taken asking industry experts when they expect AI to appear (at the equivalent of human level…what’s referred to as AGI). At the AI@50 conference (2006)…a number of experts were asked when computers would be able to simulate every aspect of human intelligence. 41% said longer than 50 years…41% said never.

Amongst the experts, there also seems to be no small degree of uncertainty as to whether the achievement of human level AI will be a good thing…or a bad thing. Most agree that it would likely be one of, if not the, most significant event ever to occur on our planet (short of Jesus returning). Some think it would be incredibly positive, others think it could be catastrophic. Obviously it would impact not just the experts…but all of society.

Recall what Chomsky had to say about ‘the experts’:

“On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.”

So what we have is what could be the most significant development in the history of history. So what is the opinion of the proletariat on this issue? An online (general population) poll was taken about a year after the AI@50 conference where the question was: When will AI surpass (not simulate, but surpass) human level intelligence? The majority of respondents were convinced this would occur in the next couple of decades.

Your suggestion that the majority recognize the difficulties of instantiating human identity into AI can only be regarded as at best naive. There would appear to be an enormous degree of not just ignorance, but outright misinformation amongst the general population. Considering how great an impact these issues have (not to mention could have) this misunderstanding can hardly be regarded as trivial.

The point (one of them) is, the mass of men interpret the issue in very simplistic terms (Data on Star Trek…R2D2 / C3PO on Star Wars…AI [Will Smith]…etc. etc.). When the issues are presented through the popular media (online technology sites, magazines, etc.) they are often presented in similarly simplistic / optimistic terms….not unlike the way it is often presented here. The idea of some kind of R2D2 running around has much more direct appeal than whatever moral / ethical / social (not to mention technical) issues may be involved in its occurrence. Considering how fundamental, significant, and potentially earth shattering this issue is…simplistic / trivial is much more likely to lead to problems / catastrophe (thus there is some motivation to behave otherwise).

How does AI human identity instantiation trivialize humanity (intentionally or not)? I guess we’re into big questions. To put it simply, human identity is a vast, complex, and at this point, mysterious thing. Respect for human identity is essential not just for a functional society, but for functional relationships of any kind. Reducing human identity to intelligible / manageable AI components encourages a distorted impression of human nature…especially amongst the less educated or gullible (and in the popular media [where a great many derive their information]…which typically reduces everything to the lowest common denominator and simplest possible explanation / description). The impression is given that science has conquered the mind (how far is that from the truth?)…that human nature is easily intelligible and is nothing but a set of components (the complexity of which is a direct function of the media source presenting the story) that can be resolved and manipulated at will. The dialogue shifts from a human-centered approach to an AI-centered approach where a human being becomes defined in terms of its AI components rather than visa versa. Does this happen? It already is. Why does this matter (apart from right now)? When / if the AGI time-bomb ever explodes, human beings had better be very clear about who and what they are, or those predicting a catastrophe may very well be right.

 

[Mr. Scott]

the constant trivialization of the identity of ‘people’ as a consequence of the assumption that the ingredients of this identity can be so easily instantiated in some variety of AI

This is key.

Note the emphatic meanness evoked in believers in the supernatural (like you and !kaggen) when they defend their beliefs against skeptics.

The idea that a machine can think like a human is like a stab to their heart. It makes them feel less special. So, they lash out, attempting to hurt the people who hurt them.

Well, get over it. All evidence indicates the body and the brain and all of life are machines, just like the machines we build. Very complicated automata that evolved through natural selection, right now more complicated than we can build, but that gap shrinks every day. It's extremely cool that evolution resulted in self conscious machines like you and me, but there's no evidence that we are more than naturally evolved machines.

Am I wrong? Where's your evidence we are more than machines.

 

[annnnoid]

Straw man.

Your question bored me. It doesn't illuminate anything about consciousness.

You weren't reprimanded for flooding?

Share with us just one piece of this mountain of evidence you claim exists. Not something random and weak. What's the strongest piece of evidence you've got?

The funny thing is that when woos are asked to DEMONSTRATE the existence of the woo they believe in, they can't, so there's nothing for science to explain. (If this statement is wrong, illuminate me, then apply for the million dollars, will you?)

Actually, science very successfully explains metaphysical delusions. Read up on it! It will give you tools to help distinguish between what's only in your imagination, and what's real.

I like to say that if you can't demonstrate that something isn't just in your head, then it's just in your head. In other words, imaginary.

The metaphysical epiphenomenal aspect of consciousness is just in your head. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

…yeah of course Scott…science explains everything…except what this universe is, where it comes from, what you are, or where you come from. Trivial stuff really.

Is this a thread about spirituality / mysticism / revelations etc. etc? Clearly not! (did I not point that out...VERY CLEARLY!). Another typical skeptic who just can’t stomach such words without experiencing a paroxysm of offense. You have now successfully joined the ranks of those whose intelligence I have not the slightest respect for. Don’t bother replying because I most certainly will not be. Adios.

 

[tsig]

This is key.

Note the emphatic meanness evoked in believers in the supernatural (like you and !kaggen) when they defend their beliefs against skeptics.

The idea that a machine can think like a human is like a stab to their heart. It makes them feel less special. So, they lash out, attempting to hurt the people who hurt them.
Well, get over it. All evidence indicates the body and the brain and all of life are machines, just like the machines we build. Very complicated automata that evolved through natural selection, right now more complicated than we can build, but that gap shrinks every day. It's extremely cool that evolution resulted in self conscious machines like you and me, but there's no evidence that we are more than naturally evolved machines.

Am I wrong? Where's your evidence we are more than machines.

…yeah of course Scott…science explains everything…except what this universe is, where it comes from, what you are, or where you come from. Trivial stuff really.

Is this a thread about spirituality / mysticism / revelations etc. etc? Clearly not! (did I not point that out...VERY CLEARLY!). Another typical skeptic who just can’t stomach such words without experiencing a paroxysm of offense. You have now successfully joined the ranks of those whose intelligence I have not the slightest respect for. Don’t bother replying because I most certainly will not be. Adios.

Q. E. D.


Bingo for the Latin challenged.

 

[annnnoid]

Y’know tsig…quite obviously, if I was offended (sorry…hurt) by those who insist machines can think like a human, there are others here who do a far more capable job of arguing that position than Scott ever has. I continue to consider their positions…because they actually have positions. Scott barely has…and you, quite reliably, never do. What actually offends me is stupidity. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with woo or spirituality or mysticism etc. etc. …so why the need for the fireworks and the massive derail. But you get three jelly beans for being creative. No…for that one, four. If there is one thing that we can depend on you for…it is to point out what does not matter.

 

[westprog]

The idea that a machine can think like a human is like a stab to their heart. It makes them feel less special. So, they lash out, attempting to hurt the people who hurt them.

And what makes the computationalists lash out* at the people who hurt them? That's easy. It's the fear that maybe there is something special, something unique, something unprecedented about life and humanity. Something not reproduced anywhere else. It's never so much about evidence and science - it's about a need and a belief that human beings can't be special.

*And check this and other threads to see who's making the personal attacks, who's coming up with the ad homs, who's constantly looking for an agenda.

 

[annnnoid]

Just a point which I think highlights some of the hypocrisy of the pseudo-computationalist position. I would suggest that anyone who is convinced that an encounter with a human level machine intelligence (or as it’s also known… AGI…artificial general intelligence) would be anything but fundamentally disturbing is, quite simply, lying to themselves. The appropriate response IS actually caution and concern with these issues. This jingoistic ‘damn-the-torpedoes…full-speed-ahead’ attitude that Scott and others here have demonstrated is, to put it bluntly, not just blatantly irresponsible but fundamentally immature (…). When these AGI people plot this trajectory to what can only be described as the most significant event in the history of the planet, that is exactly what they mean. It’s not science fiction, it’s not anybody’s adolescent masturbatory fantasies about talking sex-bots and whiz-bang space travel. As the bible says…it’s time to put away childish things. Does the idea of HLMI disturb me? Damn right it does. I sure as hell wouldn't trust someone who wasn’t disturbed by it. We don’t even know what a human being is yet, and here we have people having orgasms over creating AI. Sometimes I don’t know which worries me more…AGI…or the idiots who so blindly worship it. There’s are reasons so many AGI experts described the AGI time-bomb as a potential catastrophe….however hypothetical it may currently be.

 

[case#46cw39]

This is a problem AI programmers will have to face. I for one don't think the specialty of humanity hinges on artificial consciousness not being able to be created. Maybe it is our specialness that allows us to be smart enough to create it. So the proposition that "Because we are special beings created by God we will never be able to create artificial consciousness." or that "If we are able to create artificial consciousness then we are blocks of dirt and not special." will never hold any meaning for me. The public needs to see this.

Also the days of consciousness being a complete mystery are over. So this "excuse" for not being able to create it holds no weight. Biological psychology has a lot to say about the operational definition of consciousness.

"One might use definitions that rely on operations in order to avoid the troubles associated with attempting to define things in terms of some intrinsic essence. ... An example of an operational definition might be defining the weight of an object in terms of the numbers that appear when that object is placed on a weighing scale. The weight then, is whatever results from following the (weight) measurement procedure, which should be repeatable by anyone. This is in contrast to Operationalization that uses theoretical definitions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition

So the essence of consciousness may not be known and left unknown while still coming up with a useful operational definition for purposes of creating it in another substrate.

"The nature of consciousness is like that of a software process. It is immaterial but possible to be generated by any physical substrate able to perform the required computation." -- Leading AI expert Raul Arrabales Moreno

Look at how biological psychology operationally defines consciousness, and all they have to say about it:

"Consciousness is difficult to define, but for practical purposes researchers use this operational definition: If a cooperative person reports the presence of one stimuli and cannot report the presence of the second stimulus, then he or she was conscious of the first and not of the second." ... By this definition consciousness is almost synonymous with attention." -- Biological Psychology By James W. Kalat
http://books.google.com/books?id=Zl...=operational definition consciousness&f=false

So that's what the layman should probably be told, and keep in mind.

 

[Nonpareil]

I would suggest that anyone who is convinced that an encounter with a human level machine intelligence (or as it’s also known… AGI…artificial general intelligence) would be anything but fundamentally disturbing is, quite simply, lying to themselves. The appropriate response IS actually caution and concern with these issues.

Caution and concern are not the same as feeling disturbed.

In other news, "we don't know what a human being is" is complete nonsense. We know exactly what humans are. We don't know everything about humans, but we do know what humans are, in the same way that we don't know everything that's in the ocean but we know what the ocean is.

It's a fine distinction, but it's an important one for the purpose of this discussion, so I figured someone should point it out.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I would suggest that anyone who is convinced that an encounter with a human level machine intelligence (or as it’s also known… AGI…artificial general intelligence) would be anything but fundamentally disturbing is, quite simply, lying to themselves.

Quite the contrary, I'm having trouble thinking of many things I'd find more absolutely fascinating. Alien life would be one. Intelligent alien life, certainly. But a real, human level intelligence, implemented in code? In a manner we could understand, like... like printing out a blueprint? That would be amazing. No other word fits. Just amazing.

I'm sorry the prospect scares you. I truly am.