When will machines be as smart as humans?

[UndercoverElephant]

Not sure I agree. If a non-sentient computer is programmed to associate single-word utterances to people pointing to something that it can see with a camera, then it will be able to "learn" this information, even if it's not aware.

Yes, but all the computer would be doing would be to associate one bunch of patterns (the name of the word) with another bunch of patterns (a mathematized version of a visual image). This would certainly allow the machine to learn how to recognise a repeated instance of the visual data pattern and label it with correct name.

 

[hammegk]

... The counter-claim against it is, just because we lack the words in our language and the necessity to create such words does not mean it is impossible - it's just easier to say, "Here, taste this," than to add to our vocabulary.

Those of us who accept qualia as the basic definition of awareness don't agree that 'taste of apple' is a vocabulary issue.

 

[RandFan]

I think the notion of 'awareness' has to somehow involve some sort of feedback loop - like a program in a computer that monitors and regulates other programs in the computer, as well as itself. Simple perception seems lacking from an 'awareness' POV - there has to be some aspect that acknowledges the perceived event for awareness to occur.

Raindrops and toilet cisterns lack awareness. I think we can say many digital systems are aware, but not necessarily self-aware. My car is aware of when the door is open or when the fuel is too low, but isn't self-aware.

"some aspect that acknowledges the perceived event" You are simply defining awareness as complexity and changes in state. Your door example is simply a chain of states. A change in the state of the door changes a state (series of switches) in the processor. You are merely adding the number of conditions to the changes in state to come up with awareness.

When a raindrop strikes the pavement it changes state. So, if I hook up a battery and light bulb in an open circuit configuration with two leads on the ground so that should it rain the circuit will be close and the light will go one would the light be "aware"? Or would it be the battery? Or perhaps the wires?

Where is this awareness? I accept the definition of Dennet. But if we do use his definition then we are forced to accept that any dynamic system is aware including raindrops. Simply making a system more complex with more states that can change states based on other states really isn't changing anything. Which brings us to the problem. Or the non-existent one (according to materialists which I'm leaning to) is that what we understand as the illusion of self and the illusion of awareness isn't answered by reduction.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I doubt it will ever happen, or at least not happen for 10's of thousands of years. We'd need a computer that would be like our brains, biological and capable of creating new 'pathways', not just using existing pathways efficiently.

 

[cpolk]

When a raindrop strikes the pavement it changes state. So, if I hook up a battery and light bulb in an open circuit configuration with two leads on the ground so that should it rain the circuit will be close and the light will go one would the light be "aware"? Or would it be the battery? Or perhaps the wires?

When a raindrop hits the ground, it does not process information to determine its reaction.

The example of the car door does this. The example of the termostat and toilet cistern do this in their functioning. The human body, void of senses, does this.

Are you afraid that defining your consciousness will make it any less special? Maybe we don't want to know what makes us "human".

 

[cpolk]

So are you rejecting Searle's chinese room argument? You are welcome to do so, but I think the damage is already done. I think that computationalism with regard to mind is in terminal decline, largely because of Searle - but not exclusively because of Searle.

I'm not interested so much in the different views. The fact is, I agree with you that cognition is the way it has to be done. I think that cognition itself is mathematical in function. In order for the machine to be cognizant, we have to program that. So, all thought is computational, mathematical in nature.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If we accept that there are varying degrees of awareness, are we stopping self-awareness at the human level? A lot of people argue that animals are self-aware, inasmuch as their senses will allow them to be.

For my money, many mammals are self aware and probably a lot of birds and reptiles. I wonder about fish. I wonder about humans, sometimes.

What engages my curiosity is not whether " lesser" degrees of awareness exist- that is quite apparent. I am curious about what form a "greater than" human intelligence might take- and I don't mean just "smarter". I wonder if there are forms of intelligence so different as to be quite unrecognisable to us as intelligence. (Don't ask for clarification- I can imagine the idea, but sadly, not the reality.)


I don't see how the process by which something is built makes a difference: if the architecture and functionning is similar, it SHOULD work in a similar way.- Belz.

It need not. In some processes, the route travelled is critical to the end result. The key word here is "functioning". An organism is alive at all times from its conception at fertilisation. It is constantly functioning. The process of functioning is defined by the process which builds the organism at every moment. This is true of the brain as it is of the rest of the body. At no time does it switch off and reboot. At no time is an OS installed. The OS is the result of the combined activity of DNA in a vast number of cells cooperating to assemble the hardware. The hardware and software are intimately entwined.
By contrast, a machine is assembled and only becomes operational as a separate process after assembly is done. Its function is decreed by its design- whether it is moulded or pressed is not relevant.(At least in theory).
That simply is not true of a brain; the mind is not installed afterwards- it develops as a result of the development of the brain. The two are inseparable. Mind is not substrate independent. It is wholly a result of how the brain develops.

This need not be so for other intelligences, which may not be " mind" in this sense. But I have seen or heard of no intelligences which do not develop in this way.

 

[cpolk]

(Don't ask for clarification- I can imagine the idea, but sadly, not the reality.)

The problem is, I am having the same problem.

 

[Z]

Oooh... hyperconscious things. Now that's a thought...

 

[RandFan]

When a raindrop hits the ground, it does not process information to determine its reaction.

No more and no less than the car door example.

The example of the car door does this.

No. My statement is correct. The car door example is simply a chain of states. One state changes another which changes another.

You didn't answer the question so I'll ask it again. If I hook a battery to a light bulb in an open circuit and a rain drop completes the circuit will this configuration be aware? What will be be aware? The battery? The wire? The light bulb?

You think there is something special about the door example that sets it apart from the rain drop. There is not. It is simply a more complex and dynamic system.

The example of the termostat...

When a coiled bimetallic strip changes temperature it changes state (expands or contracts). When a rain drop strikes the pavement it changes state (it splits apart).

...and toilet cistern do this in their functioning. The human body, void of senses, does this.

None of this is different from the rain drop. A change in one state effects change in another state.

Are you afraid that defining your consciousness will make it any less special? Maybe we don't want to know what makes us "human".

You haven't been reading what I write. I have said over and over that I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may. I've said over and over that what we consider as self is likely just an illusion. Nothing about science threatens me. I'm perfectly happy to be a program in some adolescents computer. I'm happy to be no more than algorithm, state, and heuristics.

If you honestly think that I might be afraid of losing my specialness as a human then you just aren't paying attention.

Please pay attention. Oh, and answer the questions.

 

[Iacchus]

When a raindrop hits the ground, it does not process information to determine its reaction.

Simply because its actions have been predetermined beforehand and the information has already been processed.

 

[cpolk]

You didn't answer the question so I'll ask it again. If I hook a battery to a light bulb in an open circuit and a rain drop completes the circuit will this configuration be aware? What will be be aware? The battery? The wire? The light bulb?

The mechanism. The mechanism will be aware of whether or not the environmental conditions needed to function have been met. If you want to define the "light bulb" as the mechanism, then it is the light bulb. If you want to define the "circuit" as the mechanism, then it is the circuit. Does the independent splash of water have a mechanism? No. A splash of water does not have a collecting of information that results in a change.

The body of a human in a coma, wherein they have no sensory perception but the brain is still completely operating the internal organs, is still aware. It is not self-aware, but it is aware. The brain is still collection information that is resulting in changes. Were this not happening, the internal organs would not function.

This is a perfectly good, clear definition that can be used in a conversation.

Please pay attention. Oh, and answer the questions.

I have done so over and over again, and now it is your turn.

Give me a clear definition of consciousness. No open-ended definitions, we need a clear and concise one - otherwise, we cannot have a debate on whether or not it is possible to program a robot to have it.

If you can do this, we can come to an agreement - either we will use your definition, mine, or come up with an alternate one that we can both agree to.

If you cannot, then STFU and stop debating the possibilty of something you cannot even define.

 

[cpolk]

Simply because its actions have been predetermined beforehand and the information has already been processed.

What is it that is processing that information? By my definition, it is that mechanism that is aware. Not self-aware, not "human"-aware, but simply aware of whether or not the conditions necessary to interact with the information and make a change are met.

Of course, for the past several posts I have not been using this definition - I have been refering to "aware" as the same thing as "self-aware", so I find it suspicious that this conversation has been brought back to this point.

Let's move on, people.

 

[Iacchus]

A splash of water does not have a collecting information that results in a change of information.

However, a splash of water can be used as a source of information for something else. Not to mention that anytime a change occurs, as inconsequential as it may seem, information is still being registered. Otherwise it will have had no effect (hence no change) on anything else.

 

[Iacchus]

What is it that is processing that information? By my definition, it is that mechanism that is aware. Not self-aware, not "human"-aware, but simply aware of whether or not the conditions necessary to interact with the information and make a change are met.

Of course, for the past several posts I have not been using this definition - I have been refering to "aware" as the same thing as "self-aware", so I find it suspicious that this conversation has been brought back to this point.

Let's move on, people.

It is of my opinion that there is a level of awareness in all things -- by which information is processed and exchanged -- and, that this is required in order for things to function.

 

[cpolk]

It is of my opinion that there is a level of awareness in all things -- by which information is processed and exchanged -- and, that this is required in order for things to function.

I actually know a lot of people who consider the "auras" of things into their equation of life. I look at the "aura" they refer to as nothing more than heat release and/or magnetism of some type. We are still capable of having completely normal, uninsulting conversations by simply agreeing on like-terms to use.

 

[RandFan]

The mechanism. The mechanism will be aware of whether or not the environmental conditions needed to function have been met. If you want to define the "light bulb" as the mechanism, then it is the light bulb. If you want to define the "circuit" as the mechanism, than it is the light bulb. Does the independent splash of water have a mechanism? No. A splash of water does not have a collecting information that results in a change of information.

What is special about a "mechanism"? I'm sorry but you aren't telling us anything. You are giving us a word that you think signifies something special. It doesn't. The mechanism is still just a complex chain of states. And I beg to differ with your assertion about the water droplet. It does have a mechanism. It can absorb heat, store information, change the state of other states, etc. The water drop can be used to display information much the same way a light bulb does.

Give me a clear definition of consciousness.

I don't have one. I can't even prove that I have it. I can't prove that anyone else has it. I can only make assumptions based on my own perceptions and employing logic to find coherent explanations of the natural world.

No open-ended definitions, we need a clear and concise one - otherwise, we cannot have a debate on whether or not it is possible to program a robot to have it.

I understand the importance of using words precisely to communicate. The problem is that we really don't know precisely what human consciousness is. This has been the subject of much philosophical debate and scientific inquiry. In fact it is arguable that one of the most significant human endeavors has been to understand precisely what human consciousness is. I can enumerate aspects of human consciousness that I'm reasonably certain are not present in raindrops, car doors, cockroaches, thermostats or super computers. If that is not enough for you then I understand you wanting to put me on ignore.

If you can do this, we can come to an agreement - either we will use your definition, mine, or come up with an alternate one that we can both agree to.

I have already said that I don't mind using your definition so long as you understand that it is limited and problematic.

...then STFU...

?

Poor form and certainly not called for.

Look, if I'm breaking some rule you can always notify a mod. There is a little icon on the lower left of my posts, it looks like this

. Just click it and follow the instructions.

Also, keep in mind that this forum (via VBulletin) comes complete with an ignore feature. PM me if you need help using it.

There is no need to behave in a boorish fashion. Stick to logic and reason and if you don't want to engage me then don't. Your emotions are your problem, not mine.

 

[cpolk]

There is no need to behave in a boorish fashion. Stick to logic and reason and if you don't want to engage me then don't. Your emotions are your problem, not mine.

Please refer to your own post before becoming making such claims. Do not claim you were not just as rude.

I have stated my position in as clear of terms as anyone should need. The term "mechanism" is one that is clearly and concisely defined in science, so there is no need for further definition.

Otherwise, you are getting my point. Awareness is not, in my definition, something that is special. Self-awareness, perhaps, but not regular, plain ol', run-of-the-mill, ordinary, unspecial awareness.

That said. I apologize for my rudeness. Let's start over, on equal footing. If you wish to discuss this, you will either have to accept my definitions of "aware" and "self-aware", or you will have to provide one we can use.

Step one: In light of my apology, can we restart this conversation from the top?

Step two: Do you accept my definitions? If not, what definitions can we use in place?

 

[RandFan]

If you wish to discuss this, you will either have to accept my definitions of "aware" and "self-aware", or you will have to provide one we can use.

Step two: Do you accept my definitions? If not, what definitions can we use in place?

I know that the semantics is important to you. And not without reason. However simply defining consciousness isn't going to solve this problem. Don't give up on me just yet though. Let's explore our understanding of consciousness first. At the risk of being patronizing (I really don't intend to be) If you haven't yet done so see this Wikipedia page. What aspects of consciousness are you familiar with? Are there any philosophers that you are familiar with to any significant degree? Do you understand and understand the difference between "phenomenal" and "access" consciousness?

Finally give me your impression of the following statement:

The description and location of phenomenal consciousness
Although it is the conventional wisdom that consciousness cannot be defined, philosophers have been describing phenomenal consciousness for centuries.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[cpolk]

I know that the semantics is important to you. And not without reason. However simply defining consciousness isn't going to solve this problem. Don't give up on me just yet though. Let's explore our understanding of consciousness first. At the risk of being patronizing (I really don't intend to be) If you haven't yet done so see this Wikipedia page. What aspects of consciousness are you familiar with? Are there any philosophers that you are familiar with to any significant degree? Do you understand and understand the difference between "phenomenal" and "access" consciousness?

There's a lot to read! LOL It's not too much to ask that I look at something, or question what I know or have studied. I think a lot of arguments are caused by not wanting to offend, so denfinitive questions are assumed rather than asked, and when they are asked, the other people become defensive becaused they were asked to define something. So, I think we all need to lighten up, ask questions, not make assumptions about how much or how little the other person knows of the world, and just let their conversational abilities speak for themselves.

I've read the Wikipedia article.

Personally, I accept the terms of access-consciousness, but not phenomenon-consciousness. I believe that anything we cannot relate in language is due to a shortcoming in the language. Therefore, I do not accept Qualia or p-zombies. I do accept Dennett's thoughts, as they seem closest to my own, especially concerning separation of "awareness" and "self-awareness".

For the sake of argument, I can accept p-consciousness and qualia, but not p-zombies for reasons that I will claim under that thread if needed.

I accept all of the information under cognitive neuroscience as true.

My main philosophers studied are Plato, Beckenstein, and (if you can consider some of his works) Chaucer, although they obviously didn't have much influence. Most of my beliefs are from the field of life-science, and apparently my beliefs are in tune to Dennett's.

So, my proposal for this conversation is this:

"Consciousness" is the ability to perceive ourselves and our relationship to the external world, via our five senses. "Qualia" are sensual experiences which cannot be defined using language. Our state and level of consciousness is directly derived from our ability to sense, plus our ability to use that information to interact with our external environment. Our ability to sense is directly derived from our sensory organs. "Unconsiousness" is the lack of ability to perceive our relationship to the outside world, or more specifically, the simultaneous lack of ability to gather and use information from all our sensory organs, regardless of whether the malfunction is in the brain or in the organs.

Can you accept this definition, or do you have any alterations/additions?