On Consciousness

[Jeff Corey]

I have been doing research on problems that most people get wrong. A highly significant number of people who tried a simplified version of the Wason Card Selection Task at TAM1 got it wrong.
A highly significant number of people show probability matching when maximizing is the winning strategy. Pigeons and rats maximize.
I wonder if the hypothetical Data would show human behavior in these situations?

Gedanken that is more interesting to me than speculating whether Data with his positronic brain is "conscious".

 

[quarky]

It should be incumbent on you (Pixy,et al) to show us a conscious computer.
Can i see one? Like I can see UFO's and Bigfoot?

Evidence?

Oops. Didn't forget the evidence, did you?

Is this about being god?
We can create conscious machines?
Well, geepers, maybe eventually.

So far, I see no hard evidence.
Perhaps will populate other galaxies too.
I don't see that happening, because, frankly, it hasn't happened.

Maybe I simply missed all the conscious computers we're surrounded with.
That's pretty damn wooish of me to ignore such hard evidence.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Quarky, If it were conscious, how could we tell?
Eliza has been around for a while. Maybe she got better.www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html

 

[quarky]

Quarky, If it were conscious, how could we tell?
Eliza has been around for a while. Maybe she got better.www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html

We could tell because i could tell.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm the go-to guy, as per deciding what constitutes consciousness.

I guess that may sound a touch arrogant, but rest assured, I'm worth it.
I'm quite intelligent, and I have drugs and hot babes, all over my stuff.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Maybe you could teach me. I am trying to figger if my dog is and I can talk to her but she shows no sign of understanding.

 

[quarky]

I'd need serious money to bother.

Which proves my sciencyness, in spades.

 

[PixyMisa]

Regarding relevant: Dennett is a philosopher. How does that make him an expert on consciousness? There are plenty of philosophers who disagree with Dennett, esp. with respect to qualia. Generally, when someone quotes a philosopher to support a scientific principle, they are already on thin ice.

Hofstadter is a physicist and mathematician, so I also question his relevancy to the discussion. Markham is, what, a programmer? Doesn't show up on Google, so I don't know his field of specialty.

Read the Wikipedia article I so helpfully linked to.

None of the experts you cite are qualified to talk in depth about the one class of things that we know produces the phenomenon of consciousness: brains.

Well, tough beans to you, because it's an interdisciplinary problem. Just knowing about brains is not enough.

That should make you pause, especially when you accuse others of not being scientific. AFAIK only Piggy has quoted experts (whose expertise is brain research) who support his position.

No, Piggy has quotemined experts. Not remotely the same.

Give me some experts, who actually study the brain, that agree with you. One of the signs of woo is quoting "experts" who deviate way outside their field, wouldn't you agree?

An even better sign is quote mining. See Zeuzzz's tactics, for example.

I'm not trying to escape it. I think it eventually will happen. I question the assertion that it's already happened, that consciousness is SRIP and computational.

The point isn't quoting people. That's not how science works. The point is that consciousness is self-referential, that it is information processing, that computers do already do this. These are established facts. The point is that our knowledge of physics and mathematics tells us that it is provably possible for a computer to attain human level consciousness.

Try addressing the argument more, and worrying less about who quoted whom.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have been doing research on problems that most people get wrong. A highly significant number of people who tried a simplified version of the Wason Card Selection Task at TAM1 got it wrong.

Not enough computer programmers at TAM; I barely had to think about it.

A highly significant number of people show probability matching when maximizing is the winning strategy. Pigeons and rats maximize.
I wonder if the hypothetical Data would show human behavior in these situations?

He'd likely show computer programmer behaviour. From his point of view, humans who don't have at least mild Asperger's would be malfunctioning.

 

[PixyMisa]

It should be incumbent on you (Pixy,et al) to show us a conscious computer.
Can i see one?

If you're running any sort of modern, general purpose computer, some of the programs on it are conscious. See my definition; reflective programming constitutes consciousness and is widely used. That you don't recognise this doesn't constitute an argument.

 

[PixyMisa]

Maybe you could teach me. I am trying to figger if my dog is and I can talk to her but she shows no sign of understanding.

We plausibly conclude that dogs are conscious based on their complex behaviour. The sphex wasp is my go-to example of a non-conscious animal. If your dog gets stuck in sphexish loops, then I may have bad news for you.

 

[Mr. Scott]

It should be incumbent on you (Pixy,et al) to show us a conscious computer.
Can i see one? Like I can see UFO's and Bigfoot?

Evidence?

Oops. Didn't forget the evidence, did you?

Is this about being god?
We can create conscious machines?
Well, geepers, maybe eventually.

So far, I see no hard evidence.
Perhaps will populate other galaxies too.
I don't see that happening, because, frankly, it hasn't happened.

Maybe I simply missed all the conscious computers we're surrounded with.
That's pretty damn wooish of me to ignore such hard evidence.

Such magical thinking! You argue like a teenager.

There's plenty of evidence consciousness is computational. There's no evidence consciousness is more than computation. You are welcome to post links to references that refute this.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Machines can already do things that humans can't do (that's the raison d'etre for many or most of them), so what do you mean by 'real magic' (for humans) ?? An example would help.

That is a hard question to answer for this reason- It's damned difficult for a snail to imagine human intelligence. It may be as difficult for us to imagine hyper intelligence.
We have some idea of the limits of brains. (ion channel sizes seem to set performance limits and there's always the cooling problem)- but having bypassed evolutionary constraints in the design of computers, do we know what limits they may have?

 

[Belz...]

Well if you ignore all the science, of course you will think it is a philosophical debate.

Indeed. Philosophy doesn't have much to do with reality, and it doesn't require any evidence, so it's a lot easier to do than science, and it allows you to believe whatever you want.

 

[Belz...]

It should be incumbent on you (Pixy,et al) to show us a conscious computer.

I've got one in my cranium, and so do you.

Can i see one? Like I can see UFO's and Bigfoot?

This is weird, equating these things. Let's instead go with this: do you agree that consciousness appears, and indeed can only be, computational in nature ?

Is this about being god?

Are we in a Hollywood movie, now ? Science has always played god, in that sense, because it always gives us new ways to manipulate the laws of nature to our advantage. But, how is that a bad thing, unless you think people who work on the sabbath should be killed, and all that ?

So far, I see no hard evidence.

Maybe you would prefer not to see it because sentient computers would ruin your worldview, which includes the idea that human consciousness is "special" ?

The rest of your post is just snark.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is a hard question to answer for this reason- It's damned difficult for a snail to imagine human intelligence. It may be as difficult for us to imagine hyper intelligence.
We have some idea of the limits of brains. (ion channel sizes seem to set performance limits and there's always the cooling problem)- but having bypassed evolutionary constraints in the design of computers, do we know what limits they may have?

Sure. See Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, and the Church-Turing Thesis. Basically, all we can do is make computers that work like existing computers only bigger and faster; there's no new tricks that will allow us to do things we fundamentally couldn't do before.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Not enough computer programmers at TAM; I barely had to think about it.

You are overgeneralizing. Programmers as a class aren't any better at the problem,as far as I can tell from a small sample.

He'd likely show computer programmer behaviour. From his point of view, humans who don't have at least mild Asperger's would be malfunctioning.

That's another empirical question that hasn't even been asked yet, as far as I know. I have no reason to suspect it's true.

 

[PixyMisa]

You are overgeneralizing. Programmers as a class aren't any better at the problem,as far as I can tell from a small sample.

Good point. Most computer programmers aren't any good at computer programming.

That's another empirical question that hasn't even been asked yet, as far as I know. I have no reason to suspect it's true.

Yeah, just me speculating really.

 

[Mr. Scott]

If you're running any sort of modern, general purpose computer, some of the programs on it are conscious. See my definition; reflective programming constitutes consciousness and is widely used. That you don't recognise this doesn't constitute an argument.

Forgive me for asking a devil's advocate question:

You've defined consciousness in such a way that you can easily argue that it can be achieved with data processing. How would one program a computer that is reflective on its perception of its own qualia? If the idea of qualia is incoherent, then explain precisely why, then suggest a way a program might spontaneously experience something like this that has only incoherent definitions.

 

[PixyMisa]

Forgive me for asking a devil's advocate question:

You've defined consciousness in such a way that you can easily argue that it can be achieved with data processing.

Yes; my point is so does everyone else. They just don't realise it, or in many cases, admit it.

How would one program a computer that is reflective on its perception of its own qualia?

What does that mean?

If the idea of qualia is incoherent, then explain precisely why

Because qualia are defined as what is left of an experience when you've explained all the purely physical processes. Which assumes that there would be anything left, which means that the very concept of qualia assumes dualism. That's the problem: The moment you use the word your whole way of thinking about the question is poisoned.

then suggest a way a program might spontaneously experience something like this that has only incoherent definitions.

You can't experience something that has an incoherent definition. That makes no sense.

 

[tsig]

It should be incumbent on you (Pixy,et al) to show us a conscious computer.
Can i see one? Like I can see UFO's and Bigfoot?

Evidence?

Oops. Didn't forget the evidence, did you?

Is this about being god?
We can create conscious machines?
Well, geepers, maybe eventually.

So far, I see no hard evidence.
Perhaps will populate other galaxies too.
I don't see that happening, because, frankly, it hasn't happened.

Maybe I simply missed all the conscious computers we're surrounded with.
That's pretty damn wooish of me to ignore such hard evidence.

Anything that hasn't happened can't happen?