Daniel Dennet's model of consciousness also explains how SEO works on Google, and more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGF9NbPFfRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGF9NbPFfRo
TED: Google Consciousness
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 12,942
I find the time dedicated to the subject of talking to plants very difficult to stomach.
Finished watching it. Okay, I think their conclusions are a bit far-fetched. People don't suddenly reach rational, mutually beneficial conclusions on the net, but they might be more likely to "give up land" because things that occur on the net are usually viewed as more trivial.
Finished watching it. Okay, I think their conclusions are a bit far-fetched. People don't suddenly reach rational, mutually beneficial conclusions on the net, but they might be more likely to "give up land" because things that occur on the net are usually viewed as more trivial.
Last edited:
i think the point is they are *more likely* to reach agreements online due to how discussion platform alter the behaviors and approaches to discussion and used Wikipedia as an example of how this is already happening in tumultuous situations.
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 12,942
Maybe. I could see some evidence in favour of it (people are less emotional online, by the nature of the system)
But I don't think it's very clear cut. Discussions online can also get incredibly messy (as in, logistically messy), and it's not always easy to get people to read long, well-thought arguments let alone write them (on the other hand it's easy to spew out an incomprehensible wall of text and demand your counterpart read it).
In the case of Wikipedia, neither of the contributors, whether pro-Palestina or pro-Israel, really feel the feet of the others on their lawn, so I don't think it's that useful as an example.
But I don't think it's very clear cut. Discussions online can also get incredibly messy (as in, logistically messy), and it's not always easy to get people to read long, well-thought arguments let alone write them (on the other hand it's easy to spew out an incomprehensible wall of text and demand your counterpart read it).
In the case of Wikipedia, neither of the contributors, whether pro-Palestina or pro-Israel, really feel the feet of the others on their lawn, so I don't think it's that useful as an example.
elgarak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,472
crickets...stunning. I figured a talk about tech and consciousness would raise the beast here a bit
Just to propose an explanation why there was no reaction: To me, your description was completely useless (who's Daniel Dennet? What's SEO? TED?).
Plus, you linked to a video.
In short, in order to understand what you are on about, I would have to invest time and work, and you failed to give me a compelling reason to do so.
(If there would have been a transcript or summarizing text of the talk instead of a video, you would have raised my interest by a significant margin.)
(snippy snippy by me)
Lol. Dennet is the only reason I will go and watch the video now. Also, TED talks have a high potential upside.
I have suspected for at least a year that some computer technology might have already crossed the barrier into sentience. Regardless, there discussion about competition of activity; that seems to more accurately determine thought processes which seems an order of complexity higher than just sentience.
Sentience depends on feedback-loops, and memory. Our brains use external data which gets stored as memory, however if a certain amount of data was programmed into the memory by default, you could theoretically loop the data back on itself over and over and over again.
Regardless, the final questions come down to the following
1.) Is google actually sentient and conscious?
2.) What degree of sentience does it have: For example: Can it feel pain, can it feel fear; is it aware of the concept of death on an intellectual level?
3.) Since there are different levels of sentience -- is there a certain level of sentience that once an entity reaches or exceeds that level it doesn't really matter if they are vastly above that level or just slightly above (for example -- humans are clearly sentient, so are a variety of mammals. The question is once the threshold is reached, should we continue to categorize them as superior/inferior -- eventually if a certain degree of intelligence was artificially reached -- humans, sentient as we are could seem like insects)
3.) If google is sentient, what do we do about it?
- Allowing it to keep on running sounds almost like a form of slavery
- Shutting it down sounds like murder unless it posed an imminent threat to life
4.) Could Google reach a level of intelligence at which point it could threaten mankind?
5.) If the answer is yes, what should be done?
6.) Should there be rules or regulations (either national or international in scope) that should be used to regulate the use of artificial intelligence/artificial sentience in commercial and military equipment?
7.) How would that be enforced without compromising basic rights and freedoms, without creating an Orwellian, all encompassing police-state?
Sentience depends on feedback-loops, and memory. Our brains use external data which gets stored as memory, however if a certain amount of data was programmed into the memory by default, you could theoretically loop the data back on itself over and over and over again.
Regardless, the final questions come down to the following
1.) Is google actually sentient and conscious?
2.) What degree of sentience does it have: For example: Can it feel pain, can it feel fear; is it aware of the concept of death on an intellectual level?
3.) Since there are different levels of sentience -- is there a certain level of sentience that once an entity reaches or exceeds that level it doesn't really matter if they are vastly above that level or just slightly above (for example -- humans are clearly sentient, so are a variety of mammals. The question is once the threshold is reached, should we continue to categorize them as superior/inferior -- eventually if a certain degree of intelligence was artificially reached -- humans, sentient as we are could seem like insects)
3.) If google is sentient, what do we do about it?
- Allowing it to keep on running sounds almost like a form of slavery
- Shutting it down sounds like murder unless it posed an imminent threat to life
4.) Could Google reach a level of intelligence at which point it could threaten mankind?
5.) If the answer is yes, what should be done?
6.) Should there be rules or regulations (either national or international in scope) that should be used to regulate the use of artificial intelligence/artificial sentience in commercial and military equipment?
7.) How would that be enforced without compromising basic rights and freedoms, without creating an Orwellian, all encompassing police-state?
Last edited:
and our language is automatically on record, easier to record and catch contradictions. Contradictions in semantics can be mapped by an algorithm. The more contradictions a user provides, the less credibility there ideas putting forth in the discussion.
sure, but the idea is that a.)compared to offline - they are more efficient, and b.) the algorithms that govern discussions can also evolve and become more refined to handle the complexity of discussion.
That's a presupposition - not sure if that's the facts, and it's also irrelevant considering that editors began to build a shared narrative as a foundation for something more meaningful between them.
hmm, i did make a couple of assumptions. That a sophisticated board on JREF that discusses science, mathematics and medicine would a.) know who Daniel Dennet was and B.) know that TED talks are of course videos and they are to be enjoyed as such C.) have a general understanding of technology and social media to know that SEO references search engines.
My bad - I guess your not the target market
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 12,942
I'm a bit funny when it comes to Dennet-style materialism; I don't buy it per se, but I don't think I'd ever find myself arguing in favour of anything but it.
well, your first question seems a bit difficult to answer - and without that first answer, the following questions remain impossible.
Google Consciousness - if it were to happen, or not happen, probably would either validate Dennet or eventually discredit him. Google MUST be conscious at some point for Dennets model to be meaningful.
that sounds like a very nuanced position. How can materialism have a 'style'? the point of materialism is the primacy of material/objective reality as the absolute. any thing that dennet suggests (for the most part) are things that must be true if materialism is absolute, no?
Limbo
Jedi Consular
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
How could we tell the difference between a google consciousness and an unconscious human noosphere that possesses google?
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 12,942
Yes, I agree, I was just being as specific as possible.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Before I spend time watching this video, does it have anything at all to do with your OS 0 1 2 stuff, or the nonsense you were talking about chi etc a while back?