Definition of Consciousness

[Navigator]

As I said, the statement ''they who experience life subjectively" implies a 'they' who do not experience life subjectively. If the implication was not intended, then the statement is redundant, which raises the question of why it was said at all.
That's why it seems opaque.

Perhaps if you showed me where it was said, the question of why it was said could be answered.
It will have something to do with context I am guessing

 

[dlorde]

Perhaps if you showed me where it was said, the question of why it was said could be answered.
It will have something to do with context I am guessing

It was your correction of an earlier error you made where you said "What subjectivity needs to do is remove bias from its processing...". Rather than 'subjectivity', you may have meant 'consciousness', or 'people', or 'life-forms', but instead you said, ''they who experience life subjectively", which seems opaque.

But whatever; it's probably nothing to worry about.

 

[Navigator]

It was your correction of an earlier error you made where you said "What subjectivity needs to do is remove bias from its processing...". Rather than 'subjectivity', you may have meant 'consciousness', or 'people', or 'life-forms', but instead you said, ''they who experience life subjectively", which seems opaque.

But whatever; it's probably nothing to worry about.

I would have thought so. Apparently tho there seems to be a need for clarification.

Yes I did mean consciousness. For some time I have been referring to consciousness as subjective experience. They in control of their subjective experience need to remove bias from their deductive processes.

I said the same thing differently to emphasis the point.

 

[Belz...]

They are tools and do not have the capacity to observe and test as far as I can tell. For this to happen, consciousness has to play a part.

Then you are not using a very useful definition of "observe".

What happens after the interpretation of the test results?

Irrelevant. The machine can observe, calculate and conclude.

 

[Navigator]

Then you are not using a very useful definition of "observe".



Irrelevant. The machine can observe, calculate and conclude.

Thus the machine is AI.

 

[Belz...]

That's what I said from the get-go.

 

[dlorde]

I tend to associate words such as 'observe test interpret and act' as being intelligent actions when related to automation.

Yes, that's a common view, but it ain't necessarily so; the majority of machines that observe, test, interpret, and act, don't use AI as commonly understood.

There's also the question of where you draw the line at which a machine is considered intelligent. Intelligence as flexible problem-solving is pretty rare in machines. For example, is a pilotless drone that can autonomously take off, navigate to, and execute surveillance of, a target, and land again, an AI machine?

 

[Navigator]

That's what I said from the get-go.

Until I said that we already were using AI - they already existed. Didn't you argue that they were not AI?

 

[Navigator]

Yes, that's a common view, but it ain't necessarily so; the majority of machines that observe, test, interpret, and act, don't use AI as commonly understood.

There's also the question of where you draw the line at which a machine is considered intelligent. Intelligence as flexible problem-solving is pretty rare in machines. For example, is a pilotless drone that can autonomously take off, navigate to, and execute surveillance of, a target, and land again, an AI machine?

I would say any machinery which is also able to do intelligent things may as well be classed as AI.
I get the impression that when people talk about AI they are really referring to a machine which will one day be conscious.
The confuse intelligence and consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

Until I said that we already were using AI - they already existed. Didn't you argue that they were not AI?

Ok, let's clarify:

Machines don't need to be AI to be able to observe and calculate outcomes. They already do this. But AI machines would be even more capable of doing science since they can think for themselves and, essentially, reprogram themselves.

 

[Navigator]

Ok, let's clarify:

Machines don't need to be AI to be able to observe and calculate outcomes. They already do this. But AI machines would be even more capable of doing science since they can think for themselves and, essentially, reprogram themselves.

Perhaps the difference then is that if something can think for itself, then it knows itself to exist and is therefore conscious. It can even rethink. Change the way it once thought, etc...

 

[Dancing David]

Generally there would be layer on layer. there is not usually some grand all encompassing statement of reality. Nothing wrong with looking at and saying where one is at. Consciousness is not awareness tho. There are several layers that constant awareness would reside upon. If one had those in place and had constant awareness in place then one would move onto another stage and that's the proof. Otherwise it's just static philosophy. So it's the application, wisdom has to be applied.

Huh, what.

perhaps you could explain what you mean, consciousness is a sereis of events in organic brains...

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps the difference then is that if something can think for itself, then it knows itself to exist and is therefore conscious.

The definition of "consciousness" isn't to just "think", but be self-aware.

 

[Navigator]

The definition of "consciousness" isn't to just "think", but be self-aware.

What I said:

Perhaps the difference then is that if something can think for itself, then it knows itself to exist and is therefore conscious.

 

[AlBell]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/customavatars/avatar31227_1.gif[/qimg] Albell, read the thread and you won't may not be so inclined to make pointless attempts at humorous comments

I've read the thread, thanks. I fully believe this is just another religion in progress, in that no objective facts will ever be forthcoming. ymmv.

 

[Navigator]

snip...I fully believe ...snip.

As you will.

 

[Belz...]

What I said:

Perhaps the difference then is that if something can think for itself, then it knows itself to exist and is therefore conscious.

Same answer: thinking for yourself doesn't mean self-aware.

 

[dlorde]

I would say any machinery which is also able to do intelligent things may as well be classed as AI.

True enough; the crucial question is what counts as intelligence or intelligent behaviour.

I get the impression that when people talk about AI they are really referring to a machine which will one day be conscious.
The confuse intelligence and consciousness.

Yes, but it does depend on the definitions they're using.

 

[Navigator]

Same answer: thinking for yourself doesn't mean self-aware.

Belz!

Something which can think for itself, can in that practice, know itself to exist. (hilited again for you).

If you 'know you exist' you are 'self aware.'

 

[Navigator]

True enough; the crucial question is what counts as intelligence or intelligent behaviour.

Well now, that is the question. There will be many opinions about this.

Yes, but it does depend on the definitions they're using.

Ah the limitations of language.