On Consciousness

[rocketdodger]

How did the program demonstrate it was fundamentally conscious. Ask for more RAM? Faster clock speed? More cd read/write space? Larger power supply? More pixels? 132 character highspeed printer? Other requests?

You seem to miss the distinction between exhibiting a conscious behavior, and being conscious.

The distinction being that an entity is "conscious" when it displays a set of "conscious behaviors" that is larger than some threshold.

For example, do you think that the ability to write a poem means an entity is conscious? Does lacking that ability make an entity not conscious? What about the ability to react to visual stimuli? Are blind people not conscious?

When I say a program demonstrates fundamentally conscious behaviors, it means that those behaviors are part of the set of behaviors we humans consider fundamental things that a conscious entity might do. In particular, the ability to imagine things.

But it would be an error to think that "imagination" is limited to how you think of imagination, because you haven't taken the time to formalize it into something that can be discussed logically. These researchers have, and they did a very good job of it, and their robot imagines things, according to any formal definition of the term "imagine" that anyone has come up with.

 

[rocketdodger]

How did the program demonstrate it was fundamentally conscious. Ask for more RAM? Faster clock speed? More cd read/write space? Larger power supply? More pixels? 132 character highspeed printer? Other requests?

To be specific, the program was interfacing with a robot, and it determined that it should rotate the arm a certain way by imagining what the result would be if it moved a certain way. When it imagined a movement that led to a goal condition, the movement stopped being an imagined one and became a real one.

Kind of like if you were looking at a telescope and you saw the girl across the street enter her apartment, and you remember that her bedroom is to the right, your decision to rotate the telescope in that direction is based on you imagining what will take place if you rotate that telescope to the right, and you liking what result that might lead to.

 

[punshhh]

The advantage I have over people who don't know how to program is that at this point I have an almost intuitive understanding of how step by step processes might lead to this or that result. If you had the same understanding, we wouldn't even be having this argument, because you would see the whole consciousness issue in a completely different light.

Ahhh a fellow seer, nice to make your acquaintance

 

[punshhh]

Kind of like if you were looking at a telescope and you saw the girl across the street enter her apartment, and you remember that her bedroom is to the right, your decision to rotate the telescope in that direction is based on you imagining what will take place if you rotate that telescope to the right, and you liking what result that might lead to.

I once had a dream like this, it was highly synthetic and I had remarkable control of the zoom and up/down and left/right controls. The clarity was better than HD.

Curiously she was wearing a string vest, I wonder why.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Someone suggested a thermostat had a tiny morsel of consciousness. I really think memory is an essential part of consciousness, so I'd argue against this, but there was a function in a game I made that is easier to argue it qualified.

Start with the assumption that consciousness is not an either-or attribute, but a degree, from zero, to tiny, to human (and presumably beyond human, perhaps infinitely).

My function was designed to get a computer-controlled player unstuck (an counter-sphexish function). It worked beautifully and looked like it was being controlled by a conscious player. Here's the algorithm:

1 - Remember the last place you've been before this place.
2 - Remember the last direction you were moving before you were moving in the current direction.
3 - If you've been in the same place for more than 3 seconds, start moving in direction you were before the current direction, move forward for one second, then resume normal movement.

It both seems to fulfill some definitions of consciousness, and looks very conscious to the eye. I know it doesn't write poetry, but is there a clear argument that it's not a tiny bit conscious?

 

[quarky]

I forgive all conscious entities that don't write poetry.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I forgive all conscious entities that don't write poetry.

How about unconscious entities that write poetry? Are they forgiven?

Poetry by the Cybernetic Poet

A haiku written by Ray Kurzweil's Cybernetic Poet, after reading poems by Patricia Camarena Rose and Wendy Dennis:

The Stifling Stuffy

The stifling stuffy
Catholic schoolroom,
where I cannot be real.

 

[PixyMisa]

Someone suggested a thermostat had a tiny morsel of consciousness. I really think memory is an essential part of consciousness, so I'd argue against this, but there was a function in a game I made that is easier to argue it qualified.

The thermostat example was originally raised by Dennett as a system that responds to its environment but is not conscious. So, yeah.

 

[Zeuzzz]

psychedelic humans.

that's our best shot at survival, imho

Can you expand on this? What about the people who are prone to bad trips? Some people I've noticed just can not handle any sort of psychedelic that alters their consciousness.

3-meo-pcp. Might be a something of interest for you to research quarky. Dissosciatives in general are being researched scientifically for the role they may play in helping depression or anxiety, but 3-meo-pcp is on another level than its chemical cousins. It seems to be a dissociative that dissociates purely the emotional part of your psyche, whilst still leaving you lucid and able to function normally without the emotions getting in the way. Very unique trait.

I quote from another forum:

I think a really common recurring pattern is this state of mind where you don't feel inebriated much at all, but you do some serious out-of-character **** without even blinking an eye-lid, great in small does if you got social anxiety but in my case even 8mg orally and 3hrs later I'm making out with a woman way too old to be behaving like that... but 3-meo-pcp, it has this way of making you completely detached and absolutely present at the same time... like you're aware of your emotions (fear, stress, horniness etc) but you don't feel them, just observe and play with them.

^ I could have written that myself.

You've probably seen this site quarky http://www.mdma.net/#mdmalife

In fact, I'm pretty damn sure you wrote it

 

[quarky]

Can you expand on this? What about the people who are prone to bad trips? Some people I've noticed just can not handle any sort of psychedelic that alters their consciousness.

3-meo-pcp. Might be a something of interest for you to research quarky. Dissosciatives in general are being researched scientifically for the role they may play in helping depression or anxiety, but 3-meo-pcp is on another level than its chemical cousins. It seems to be a dissociative that dissociates purely the emotional part of your psyche, whilst still leaving you lucid and able to function normally without the emotions getting in the way. Very unique trait.

I quote from another forum:

I think a really common recurring pattern is this state of mind where you don't feel inebriated much at all, but you do some serious out-of-character **** without even blinking an eye-lid, great in small does if you got social anxiety but in my case even 8mg orally and 3hrs later I'm making out with a woman way too old to be behaving like that... but 3-meo-pcp, it has this way of making you completely detached and absolutely present at the same time... like you're aware of your emotions (fear, stress, horniness etc) but you don't feel them, just observe and play with them.

^ I could have written that myself.

You've probably seen this site quarky http://www.mdma.net/#mdmalife

In fact, I'm pretty damn sure you wrote it

Yikes, that was quite the read.
Definitely not me writing.

Phenethlamines have lots of promise for trauma. MDMA is the most potent analgesic I've encountered, though its seldom touted as such. Probably because its sort of a one-time deal. Best used to overcome the fear of lsd, imho. And lsd is best used to overcome the fear of silence.

Overcoming the intense materialism of modern culture, and finding joy in simple observational states is what is missing, imho, as per the future well being of humankind.

The psychedelics are a stepping stone. They introduce us to unspoken possibilities of consciousness. They remind us that a blissful mental state is within our capabilities; that ecstasy is a human right. Yet, it requires effort.
There are no happy pills. But there are pills that can awaken the notion of the potential of our neuro-chemistry.

Tryptamines have more promise, imho. Perhaps its old protestant ethics. You have to work. MDMA is more like a vacation. Expensive. Relaxing. Fun.
But very little learned on the ride.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Are there people like me?

As per becoming hateful, its not my norm, that's for sure.

"Complaining that it won't feed the hungry is missing the point of what really matters."

Evidently, I have no idea what really matters.

Machines are our slaves?
Possibly got that backwards.

What would i rather be mesmerized by?
Nature. Beauty. Color. Music.

Creating better jobs?
Are you serious?

The most sophisticated technology on Earth has created endless, really really crappy jobs.
Perhaps you need to get out more often?

I recoil, frankly, at the manifest destiny aspect of technology, regardless of what it represents. I'm not a bit anti-science. I'm quite educated, even.
Crappy, pointless science, yes. I'm opposed.

There's always some new weapon that's going to make war obsolete, for instance.
meanwhile, my country and its scientists are still busy making more land mines to spread all over the planet.

What's it all about?

Arrogance of science.
Science that shoves itself down people's throats, for the aggrandizement of the few.
Pointless, crappy science, of the sort, that frankly, can't wrestle itself out of a paper bag, yet is very proud of itself.

Science that can't recognize when it is utterly failing.
Science that is so far up business's butt, that it can't see the light of day.
Elitism. Myopia. Denial of history and reality.

I love science.
Too bad its mostly turned to crap.
science is about to cause our own demise.

Though, being unwilling to see that; to step back and say, "Gee, maybe things aren't going so well; maybe we should take a good hard look at the reality of the human condition today, and reassess the value of many so called scientific advancements.

The idea that AI robots will improve the quality of human life is hilarious.
But have at it. i simply object to the notion that all science is self-justified and good, when in fact, most of it today is hopelessly corrupt and flawed.

I object to the religion and the faith that seems to come with science. Science will save us. Science will get us to the stars. Science will end disease and aging.
Sure it will. and Jesus will save us too. What fantastical crapola. what stunning arrogance. What disregard for all other life.
I'm atheistic and scientific. I love the method. i hate the religion of science.

You are conflating science and technology here.

 

[!Kaggen]

You are conflating science and technology here.

Well yes then so is this forum by putting them in the same category of discussion.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well yes then so is this forum by putting them in the same category of discussion.

As much as a supermarket does when it puts apples and oranges in the same section. That is, not at all.

 

[quarky]

You are conflating science and technology here.

Yes.
As mentioned, I love the method. Some of the ensuing technologies are razzle-dazzle.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Yes.
As mentioned, I love the method. Some of the ensuing technologies are razzle-dazzle.

Wouldn't a conscious robot to explore other planets for us be extremely helpful?

 

[quarky]

Wouldn't a conscious robot to explore other planets for us be extremely helpful?

Sure. Except, at this stage, we can do a lot with remote observation.
Would a conscious robot have its own agenda? If not, wouldn't it be better for it to have a link to a person's conscious?

I'm not really opposed to any of this, and I got a bit feisty for the sake of debate. It bothers me that we don't know most of the species on the planet, and we're about to erase a bunch of them. We've barely begun to explore this planet, in a way, so i find the manned space exploration stuff rather 'escapist' in nature.

I could get excited about an attempt to have a colony deep within the Antarctic ice-cap. I think it would be good training, and I'm personally curious as hell about what's down there, under all that ice.

 

[blobru]

I forgive all conscious entities that don't write poetry.

How about unconscious entities that write poetry? Are they forgiven?

Poetry by the Cybernetic Poet

A haiku written by Ray Kurzweil's Cybernetic Poet, after reading poems by Patricia Camarena Rose and Wendy Dennis:

The Stifling Stuffy

The stifling stuffy
Catholic schoolroom,
where I cannot be real.

I'm kind of surprised that it's Catholic - would've thought there might be some danger of short-circuiting during baptism - but not surprised that it finds it stifling and stuffy.

I sense a lot of angst, in the last line especially.

I wonder if it's ever been abused by a priest?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Sure. Except, at this stage, we can do a lot with remote observation.
Would a conscious robot have its own agenda? If not, wouldn't it be better for it to have a link to a person's conscious?

Robots on places like Mars or a Jovian moon would be too far for efficient control by an Earth-bound consciousness. Programming with appropriate research desires and anti-sphexishness would be real pluses.

Again, we need not think of consciousness as only and exactly what our brains do. We have a "selfish agenda module with the possibility of betraying our master" module that no doubt helped our ancestors survive, but we need not have that module in our conscious space exploration robots.

Must a robot 100% loyal to us be unconscious?

 

[tsig]

Wouldn't a conscious robot to explore other planets for us be extremely helpful?

Not when it established a colony and rebelled against Earth.

 

[quarky]

Robots on places like Mars or a Jovian moon would be too far for efficient control by an Earth-bound consciousness. Programming with appropriate research desires and anti-sphexishness would be real pluses.

Again, we need not think of consciousness as only and exactly what our brains do. We have a "selfish agenda module with the possibility of betraying our master" module that no doubt helped our ancestors survive, but we need not have that module in our conscious space exploration robots.

Must a robot 100% loyal to us be unconscious?

There is something about the notion of 100% loyalty to anyone or anything that smacks of unconscious.