On Consciousness

[Zeuzzz]

Laughing when someone farts? That's a sure sign of intelligence.

No it's not a sign of intelligence.

It's a sign of being conscious. It's an intuitive right brain instinct, rather than a left brain learnt intelligence.

You could program it to laugh with a left brain type algorithm based on the data involved in the sound wave, I don't doubt that, but it would not be understanding why it's funny on a social/emotional/cultural level. It's just following algorithmic orders.

 

[dlorde]

It's an intuitive right brain instinct, rather than a left brain learnt intelligence.

I think you'll find that kind of left-brain right-brain degree of specialisation was abandoned some time ago. There are some functional differences and hemisphere-specific specialised areas, but not like that.

 

[steenkh]

Thats the next level of turing test that I have not seen named or reproduced by any AI, the type of right brain creative/reactionary based emotions and feelings we all have alongside our programmed left brain memory and intelligence. What gives us our a sense of humour, etc.

Why on earth would emotions and feelings be prerequisites for consciousness?
There are people who seem devoid of either, and yet we do not doubt that they are conscious.

You could program it to laugh with a left brain type algorithm based on the data involved in the sound wave, I don't doubt that, but it would not be understanding why it's funny on a social/emotional/cultural level. It's just following algorithmic orders.

We have already explained to you many times that there exist programs that are not algorithmic. Humour could be taught to such a program, and nobody will know exactly why it acts like it does, just like with humans.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Why on earth would emotions and feelings be prerequisites for consciousness?
There are people who seem devoid of either, and yet we do not doubt that they are conscious.

But they don't function like 'normal' conscious people.

From an AI perspective, as pixy said before, a program/person who is too emotional without being intelligent or logical would be 'malfunctioning'. Like someone who uses natural psychedelics to induce altered states of conscious different from the normal.

From an AE (artificial emotion) perspective, a program/person that acts on emotions and intuitions rather than intelligence and logic is fully emotionally and socially functional. From this perspective, purely logical AI programs are the ones that are malfunctioning.

We have already explained to you many times that there exist programs that are not algorithmic. Humor could be taught to such a program, and nobody will know exactly why it acts like it does, just like with humans.

I know they exist.

I was impressed at how powerful the evolutionary process was when non linear systems and chaos theory were programmed into them. Within a few days they could walk, as the ones that fell over died out. Within a week they could bump into each other and react spontaneously, far beyond the programmers initial expectations. And within a month or so it was impossible to predict what they would do. But, they were not showing emotions, humor, intuition or cultural attributes that organic conscious entities do. And they likely never will. Even today all they seem good for is logical, yet indeterminate, simulations.

This is probably the most up to date paper on the matter: On the Evolutionary Optimization of Chaos Control – A Brief Survey

This work represents the brief introduction into the issues of evolutionary optimization of discrete chaotic systems. This work introduces and compares evolutionary approach representing tuning of parameters for an existing control method either with the standard cost function using the numerical desired state as the one of the input or blackbox type cost function, as well as meta-evolutionary approach representing synthesis of a whole control law by means of Analytic Programming (AP). The main part of this work is focused on the proper development of the cost function used in evolutionary process. As an example of discrete chaotic system, one-dimensional Logistic equation was used. For the experiments following soft computing tools were utilized: Symbolic regression tool Analytic Programming and evolutionary algorithms Self-Organizing Migrating Algorithm (SOMA) and Differential Evolution (DE).

(creative commons public license)

 

[Zeuzzz]

I think you'll find that kind of left-brain right-brain degree of specialisation was abandoned some time ago. There are some functional differences and hemisphere-specific specialised areas, but not like that.

Even if the hemispheric locality of the creative and the learned areas of the brain is not 100% true, it is still a useful distinction to make between certain brain systems.

That article seemed to base it's entire premise on one conclusion from one paper that was at odds with the previously well recognized concept. Is that compelling evidence to you? Or do you have more?

Science by pop-sci journalism is usually highly unconvincing to me.

 

[quarky]

Its funny how groovy Einstein was. I suspect he'd be laughed off this website, if it was around when he was first formulating his theorems.

Which isn't to suggest a correlation between brilliance and being laughed out of jref.
Its always more complex than that.
The ratio is probably a million to one, as per creative crack-pots and genius.

But how would I know?
I'm mostly curious if Neanderthals laughed at various farts around the camp fire.

 

[quarky]

Its funny how groovy Einstein was. I suspect he'd be laughed off this website, if it was around when he was first formulating his theorems.

Which isn't to suggest a correlation between brilliance and being laughed out of jref.
Its always more complex than that.
The ratio is probably a million to one, as per creative crack-pots and genius.

But how would I know?
I'm mostly curious if Neanderthals laughed at various farts around the camp fire.

 

[quarky]

Here's an example I was going to ignore and correct:

Several times, recently, I've tried to send a post, and gotten the message that I need to wait x seconds between posts.
So I do, and then I see that the first post actually 'took'.
And, in fact, I hadn't attempted to write anything for hours.

(Is anyone else experiencing this?)

Of course, on the other side of the debate, clearly consciousness is littered with errors.
Its almost a way to recognize what it is.

I stink, therefore I am?



We need the Zeusss's amongst us.

 

[dlorde]

Even if the hemispheric locality of the creative and the learned areas of the brain is not 100% true, it is still a useful distinction to make between certain brain systems.

What your said isn't true, and it isn't useful because it isn't true; if you'd like to move the goalposts, try being more specific.

That article seemed to base it's entire premise on one conclusion from one paper that was at odds with the previously well recognized concept. Is that compelling evidence to you? Or do you have more?

It was just an example. There's plenty more - if you really want to find it, Google is your friend.

 

[steenkh]

But they don't function like 'normal' conscious people.

On the other hand, they do not hallucinate either, so their brains are not malfunctioning.

From an AI perspective, as pixy said before, a program/person who is too emotional without being intelligent or logical would be 'malfunctioning'. Like someone who uses natural psychedelics to induce altered states of conscious different from the normal.

From an AE (artificial emotion) perspective, a program/person that acts on emotions and intuitions rather than intelligence and logic is fully emotionally and socially functional. From this perspective, purely logical AI programs are the ones that are malfunctioning.

So when programs can theoretically fulfill AI and AE requirements, what is the problem?

I know they exist.

I was impressed at how powerful the evolutionary process was when non linear systems and chaos theory were programmed into them. Within a few days they could walk, as the ones that fell over died out. Within a week they could bump into each other and react spontaneously, far beyond the programmers initial expectations. And within a month or so it was impossible to predict what they would do. But, they were not showing emotions, humor, intuition or cultural attributes that organic conscious entities do. And they likely never will. Even today all they seem good for is logical, yet indeterminate, simulations.

What basis do you have to claim that programs will never develop humour and emotions? Non-algorithmic programs do not have a barrier preventing them from developing humour if they are taught to have it. But it is true that they lack the biological base that humans have hardwired for this.

Complete simulations of the human brain would, on the other hand, display the entire range of emotions. Unless you think that emotions rest in something outside physics …

This is probably the most up to date paper on the matter: On the Evolutionary Optimization of Chaos Control – A Brief Survey

In what way is this paper supporting anything you say? The abstract does not even mention the results!

 

[Anders Lindman]

My consciousness is only aware of a small portion of reality. But that doesn't mean that my consciousness is separate from that which I'm unaware of. In fact, can something be truly separate in reality? Maybe not. Because for something to be truly separate it would not be a part of reality. A wall can separate one side from the other side, yet both the wall, and that which is on either side of the wall are parts of the same one reality. So consciousness as I see it is connected to the entire universe.

 

[!Kaggen]

My consciousness is only aware of a small portion of reality. But that doesn't mean that my consciousness is separate from that which I'm unaware of. In fact, can something be truly separate in reality? Maybe not. Because for something to be truly separate it would not be a part of reality. A wall can separate one side from the other side, yet both the wall, and that which is on either side of the wall are parts of the same one reality. So consciousness as I see it is connected to the entire universe.

Well yes, but is that a useful definition of consciousness for Pixy and his team?
No ,because it is a meaningful definition of consciousness and meaning does not count.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Well yes, but is that a useful definition of consciousness for Pixy and his team?
No ,because it is a meaningful definition of consciousness and meaning does not count.

It's not a complete definition but the hypothesis that consciousness is connected to everything in the universe can be used as a basis for such definition, such as:

Definition: Consciousness is a state of being aware that is connected to everything in the universe.

 

[Dancing David]

Even if the hemispheric locality of the creative and the learned areas of the brain is not 100% true, it is still a useful distinction to make between certain brain systems.

Only because you like over simplified arguments and characterizations.

Emotions cross both hemispheres, duh.

 

[steenkh]

It's not a complete definition but the hypothesis that consciousness is connected to everything in the universe can be used as a basis for such definition, such as:

Definition: Consciousness is a state of being aware that is connected to everything in the universe.

So by your definition, consciousness does not exist! Great thinking …

 

[Anders Lindman]

So by your definition, consciousness does not exist! Great thinking …

A state may not always be something material, but that doesn't mean it is nonexistent. You can hardly deny your own consciousness, so that is direct proof that the state in this case is something actual and not just an abstraction.

 

[steenkh]

A state may not always be something material, but that doesn't mean it is nonexistent. You can hardly deny your own consciousness, so that is direct proof that the state in this case is something actual and not just an abstraction.

Your definition is dependent on something that is contrary to everything we know about physics, and completely without evidence. If you want to use your definition, you will have to start proving that such a connection exists. Good luck!

On the other hand, you could argue that it is enough to believe that such a connection exists, in which case only inebriated, or otherwise hallucinating people would be conscious according to your definition

 

[Anders Lindman]

"Operator-Related Anomalies in a Random Mechanical Cascade

Abstract—Experiments with a "Random Mechanical Cascade" (RMC) apparatus have yielded anomalous results correlated with pre-stated intentions of human operators. Based upon a common statistical demonstration device, this machine allows 9000 polystyrene balls to drop through a matrix of 330 pegs, scattering them into 19 collecting bins with a population distribution that is approximately Gaussian. As the balls enter the bins, exact counts are accumulated photoelectrically, displayed as feedback for the operator, and recorded on-line. Operators attempt to shift the mean of the developing distributions to the right or left, relative to a concurrently generated baseline distribution. Of the 25 operators who have completed one or more experimental series with this device, four have achieved anomalous separations of their right and left efforts, and two others have displayed significant separations of either their right or left efforts from their baselines." -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1988-operator-related-anomalies-rmc.pdf

 

[Anders Lindman]

Your definition is dependent on something that is contrary to everything we know about physics, and completely without evidence. If you want to use your definition, you will have to start proving that such a connection exists. Good luck!

On the other hand, you could argue that it is enough to believe that such a connection exists, in which case only inebriated, or otherwise hallucinating people would be conscious according to your definition

Isn't gravity connected to everything in the universe? Isn't space connected to everything in the universe? Is there anything that is really separate? I heard that electric fields are actually infinite in size although their effect becomes very small at large distances. So what, then, IS, actually totally separate?

 

[Mr. Scott]

"Operator-Related Anomalies in a Random Mechanical Cascade

Abstract—Experiments with a "Random Mechanical Cascade" (RMC) apparatus have yielded anomalous results correlated with pre-stated intentions of human operators. Based upon a common statistical demonstration device, this machine allows 9000 polystyrene balls to drop through a matrix of 330 pegs, scattering them into 19 collecting bins with a population distribution that is approximately Gaussian. As the balls enter the bins, exact counts are accumulated photoelectrically, displayed as feedback for the operator, and recorded on-line. Operators attempt to shift the mean of the developing distributions to the right or left, relative to a concurrently generated baseline distribution. Of the 25 operators who have completed one or more experimental series with this device, four have achieved anomalous separations of their right and left efforts, and two others have displayed significant separations of either their right or left efforts from their baselines." -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1988-operator-related-anomalies-rmc.pdf

Sorry, the Pear work has been soundly debunked as bad science. If this worked, Randi's million would already be claimed.