As far as I am concerned, I recognise Pixy's definition as a generalization of the idea of the essential and fundamental role of self-reference or self-representation in biological consciousness (e.g. Hofstadter and Dennett) to all information processing systems.
I differ in that I would qualify it as defining the essence or basis of consciousness, rather than consciousness as generally recognised. This is really just a question of where one considers the level of recognisable consciousness to begin, which, for now, is an arbitrary judgement of preference.
For example, for a biological creature with a relatively simple CNS, if it could be demonstrated that it had operational self-reference or self-representation, I would acknowledge that it had a simple form of consciousness; and I see no reason why I should not make the same acknowledgement of an artificial system with operational self-reference or self-representation. However, it is likely that neither would appear to operate at a level that most people would recognise as consciousness.
This is why I accept the definition with the qualification that I don't see it as practically useful in a general discussion of consciousness as most people recognise it, beyond the initial distinction that an entity should not be considered conscious without it.
I understand your bending over backwards to defend your tribal member. It is amazing how tribalism can lead to so much mental gymnastics and warping and wrangling of words to defend one's tribe despite that nagging cognitive dissonance.
But the fact remains that PixyMisa’s
“not practical” SRIP operational definition of consciousness has lead him to conclude that
at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.
And that
Yes, absolutely. I've written such programs myself. It's a common programming technique
And he concludes using this
“not practical” SRIP operational definition that achieving consciousness in a computer is
NOT
Consider if person X were to state that
Carbon is the cause of life…. I have created living things in my basement because I used carbon to create them…. Life is not remarkable it is just carbon based matter.
And then Z comes along and defends X’s assertions with the following
(please…read this carefully)
As far as I am concerned, I recognise X’s definition as a generalization of the idea of the essential and fundamental role of CARBON in biological life in all living systems.
I differ in that I would qualify it as defining the essence or basis of life, rather than LIFE as generally recognised. This is really just a question of where one considers the level of recognisable life to begin, which, for now, is an arbitrary judgement of preference.
For example, for something, if it could be demonstrated that it had carbon, I would acknowledge that it had a simple form of life; and I see no reason why I should not make the same acknowledgement of an artificial system with carbon. However, it is likely that neither would appear to operate at a level that most people would recognise as living.
This is why I accept the definition with the qualification that I don't see it as practically useful in a general discussion of life as most people recognise it, beyond the initial distinction that an entity should not be considered living without it.
Do you agree with Z’s statements? Is it not ridiculous of Z to agree with the operational definition that Carbon is the cause of life and despite being not a practical definition it is still useful in at least eliminating none-life if it does not have carbon?
Cockroaches have SRIP and indeed an air-conditioning system (with a thermostat) has SRIP too. Thus according to the notion that SRIP is the
“essence or basis of consciousness” we would be forced to conclude that air-conditioning systems are conscious. Accordingly, using the same illogic one may also then argue that A PENCIL is on some level ALIVE.
A definition of consciousness that renders air-conditioners conscious is indeed “not a practical definition” to say the least…. I would go so far to also agree that it is “monumentally simplistic”. But I would go further and say that it is also USELESS and MEANINGLESS and OF NO VALUE and wrong….. just as I am sure you would conclude about X’s claim that carbon is the cause of life which leads him to conclude that pencils are alive.
If a definition of LIFE leads one to conclude that charcoal is alive then it is not a definition that IS OF ANY VALUE whether practical or not…… do you agree?
Please answer the following question
Do you agree that a definition of the cause of life that renders pencils as possibly alive is an utterly useless and simplistic definition?
You have evaded the questions before but now that you are trying to
you ought to be forthcoming
Can you answer the following questions without any
Colourful hyperbole, ridicule, mockery, scorn, cherry-picking, misquoting, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and straw-manning
If as it seems you are so concerned with
"the lurkers" why did you not contradict the assertion made by PixyMisa when he said
at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.
Or do you perhaps agree with his assertion? Do you too think that there are typical modern computers that are currently going about being conscious?
Have you achieved what PixyMisa claims to have achieved when he said
Yes, absolutely. I've written such programs myself.It's a common programming technique.
And if you did not, then have you tried the
"common programming technique" he claims he used to create conscious computers? Have you had any success yet?
If you did not post any objection to the above claims, could one construe that as a tacit agreement with the assertions since you have been a very active participant to the thread which aims at explaining consciousness to the layman?
Don’t you think that a layman who reads that any programmer can make any computer become conscious would be quite misguided by the assertions?
Since you are so interested in clarifying your position to the lurkers don't you think that you owe it to the readers of this thread and to the contributors who oppose the assertions to either support the assertions or deny them.
Do you not think that consciousness in a typical modern computer is in any way a remarkable? How would you respond to this question
PixyMisa said:
do you think computer consciousness is in any way remarkable?
And if you do think that it is a remarkable achievement given the fact that neither you nor anyone else has so far achieved it, why did you not offer a response to Pixy's question?
Especially in the light of the fact that you are so concerned with the lurkers and are interested in clarifying your position.
If you do not think that computers are already conscious due to common programming techniques then why have you not posted a response to the effect?
I now put the questions to you again just in case you might have missed them before and that is why you have not offered a response:
Do you think that there are currently “typical modern computers that are conscious” due to running programs that are utilizing “a common programming technique” that any programmer can code? If not.... then why have you not said so in response to the claims of Pixy Misa?
Do you think that such an achievement would set a “remarkable” milestone in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) at the very least? If yes.... then why have you not said so in response to the claims of Pixy Misa? If not....then why not?
Do you agree that a definition of the cause of life that renders pencils as possibly alive is an utterly useless and simplistic definition?
Do you agree that a definition of the cause of consciousness that renders air-conditioners as conscious is an utterly useless and simplistic definition?
Please answer the above questions without any
Colourful hyperbole, ridicule, mockery, scorn, cherry-picking, misquoting, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and straw-manning
