Artificial Intelligence

[MD]

Neither side has beed destroyed, both are possible. Mysticism is one of the few spiritual possibilities I haven't turn my back on. However, the implications of qualia existing are so absurd that it does damage. I mean to actually think that plants, rocks, atoms, every cell, etc is fully aware, has free will rather then acts deterministically, stuff like that, it is absolutely ridiculous. And yes, the one-mind theory, this mysical idea that consciousness is fundamental, implies complete free will of everything in existence, which is just plain silly. You youself even admitted that it is magic, yet you think the scientific community is going to back it. And, even if qualia exist, it poses no thread to strong AIs, which is the topic of the thread. When I wanted us to stop bother with each other, I didn't mean you should keep bringing this magical mysticism into my thread on a totally different topic. Start a new thread. I respect your freedom to believe this, but I also respect the right for flat earther's to believe the world is a flat disc.

This is the last post I will ever give you. You don't own a thread, you don't own ****. The best neuroscientists who study this do agree with what I say. Consciousness is not only awareness, what part of a scientific definition don't you get? Are you that thick?

I said it seems like magic, but in the universe you state to be true it's IMPOSSIBLE. Materialism is incomplete. Calling qualia flat earth shows how much of a fundamentalist materialist you are.

I'm done here.

 

[1137]

This is the last post I will ever give you. You don't own a thread, you don't own ****. The best neuroscientists who study this do agree with what I say. Consciousness is not only awareness, what part of a scientific definition don't you get? Are you that thick?

I said it seems like magic, but in the universe you state to be true it's IMPOSSIBLE. Materialism is incomplete. Calling qualia flat earth shows how much of a fundamentalist materialist you are.

I'm done here.

I have started a thread on this topic: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...iousness-fundamental-reality.html#post3050019

As for consciousness, I provided numerous definitions for you that clearly define what consciousness is, I am sorry it is not biased towards mysticism. If you ever want to be taken seriously, you need to stop dropping insults left and right, stop cussing at people when they disagree, be able to handle disagreement.

Also, for possibly the 10th time, I am not a materialist. You cannot even get that one through your head when I straight up tell you, then call me fundamentalist. A materialist view is ridiculous because things such as gravity could not exist if it were true. There is no physical cause of gravity that we know of, and I accept that gravity exists.

 

[1137]

I am re-posting this in case anyone interested in the topic of AIs is still around

The discussion is on whether strong artificial intelligence is possible, and what will happen if we create them. As pointed out, one way to test if a machine can reason would be to program it with limited information and see if it can find truths beyond what it knows, such as through logic. We could give it no understanding of gravity and then let an apple fall on its head, for example. Obviously this is a crude example, but we can't make specifics until we are closer anyways.

Another issue is self awareness. One thing we would need to figure out is how to determine if something is self aware. I would think we could create a line of questioning and testing to determine if this is true or not, but I am not sure. Anyone want to delve further into this potential problem?

Of course, there is the issue of consciousness. We have covered the issue of the mystical qualia, but now I would like to avoid it as it is irrelevant. If consciousness is, in fact, a fundamental aspect of reality then the AIs will automatically have consciousness just like all the talking plants, emotional rocks, happy atoms, etc. The issue is down the equally if not more likely road that consciousness is caused by the physical. How could we create these organic interactions in a machine? Obviously we cannot fully discuss this currently. But, assuming we gain a complete understanding of how our brains cause "consciousness", is there (logically) some way we could replicate that process in a machine?

 

[idav]

I am re-posting this in case anyone interested in the topic of AIs is still around

The discussion is on whether strong artificial intelligence is possible, and what will happen if we create them. As pointed out, one way to test if a machine can reason would be to program it with limited information and see if it can find truths beyond what it knows, such as through logic. We could give it no understanding of gravity and then let an apple fall on its head, for example. Obviously this is a crude example, but we can't make specifics until we are closer anyways.

Thinking outside the box tests are always fun.

[youtube]xOrgOW9LnT4[/youtube]
Chimpanzee Problem Solving by Cooperation - YouTube

Another issue is self awareness. One thing we would need to figure out is how to determine if something is self aware. I would think we could create a line of questioning and testing to determine if this is true or not, but I am not sure. Anyone want to delve further into this potential problem?

I'm fond of the mirror test.
[youtube]W-pc_M2qI74[/youtube]
Amazing Apes: Self-awareness (1/2) - YouTube

Of course, there is the issue of consciousness. We have covered the issue of the mystical qualia, but now I would like to avoid it as it is irrelevant. If consciousness is, in fact, a fundamental aspect of reality then the AIs will automatically have consciousness just like all the talking plants, emotional rocks, happy atoms, etc. The issue is down the equally if not more likely road that consciousness is caused by the physical. How could we create these organic interactions in a machine? Obviously we cannot fully discuss this currently. But, assuming we gain a complete understanding of how our brains cause "consciousness", is there (logically) some way we could replicate that process in a machine?

All the data would have to be processed all at once with an awareness of all the vast knowledge. Like the RAM in a computer which holds the memory which is the awareness of the OS and applications and processes that are running.

 

[apophenia]

I am re-posting this in case anyone interested in the topic of AIs is still around

The discussion is on whether strong artificial intelligence is possible, and what will happen if we create them. As pointed out, one way to test if a machine can reason would be to program it with limited information and see if it can find truths beyond what it knows, such as through logic. We could give it no understanding of gravity and then let an apple fall on its head, for example. Obviously this is a crude example, but we can't make specifics until we are closer anyways.

Another issue is self awareness. One thing we would need to figure out is how to determine if something is self aware. I would think we could create a line of questioning and testing to determine if this is true or not, but I am not sure. Anyone want to delve further into this potential problem?

Of course, there is the issue of consciousness. We have covered the issue of the mystical qualia, but now I would like to avoid it as it is irrelevant. If consciousness is, in fact, a fundamental aspect of reality then the AIs will automatically have consciousness just like all the talking plants, emotional rocks, happy atoms, etc. The issue is down the equally if not more likely road that consciousness is caused by the physical. How could we create these organic interactions in a machine? Obviously we cannot fully discuss this currently. But, assuming we gain a complete understanding of how our brains cause "consciousness", is there (logically) some way we could replicate that process in a machine?

I am interested in discussing AIs, but from the perspective of their influence on society, and the ways in which they will be perceived and engaged.

That perhaps should be a thread all its own, if the issues above are the main things you want to talk about. We've sort of hit the wall as far as discussion of the nature of consciousness and the possibility of replicating it IMO - I am also thinking about other threads, like "Is the internet conscious of itself yet ?".

It is a shame that William Gibson's early books are not so well known now. He really covered a lot of this ground and very accurately predicted much of what has happened in the last 30 years, and in the immediate future. Unfortunately, his ideas were recycled and made more obscure as 'Matrix'. Gibson himself painted a picture of a world dominated by internet-hosted AIs, corporate, military and private.

I am interested in what happens when the AIs utilise the kind of knowledge pioneered by Dr Manfred Clynes. He did very interesting and valuable work regarding what he calls 'sentic forms'. Sentics relates to the innate, unconscious language of emotion, which can be demonstrated and measured in various ways ( too much for this one post). Dr Clynes has produced software which can imbue a computer generated musical score with very precise emotional content. In other words it can take a standard, quantised MIDI file of a piece, and add the fine dynamic nuances of timing and amplitude which convey what is felt as authentic emotion.

He also invented the word cyborg, so he gets cool points just for that.

He gave a warning about the combination of AIs and sentics in the early 90s, which has very wide ramifications in our society.

 

[1137]

If you start a thread on how AIs will affect society I would love to discuss it. I wanted to here but things got crazy. If not, I'll probably start one in the coming days.

 

[apophenia]

I really do recommend reading "Neuromancer", and in fact the whole trilogy. I'm pretty sure you would love it. Usually, when a speculative fiction (in this case, the definitive 'cyberpunk' novel) is 30 years old, it is already becoming outdated. The stuff Gibson writes is so ahead of the trend. His post-2000 novels too, but in a more subtle way.

One detail I forgot to mention - in the Gibson novels, cyberspace was experienced as internal virtual reality via brain-machine interface.

 

[1137]

I really do recommend reading "Neuromancer", and in fact the whole trilogy. I'm pretty sure you would love it. Usually, when a speculative fiction (in this case, the definitive 'cyberpunk' novel) is 30 years old, it is already becoming outdated. The stuff Gibson writes is so ahead of the trend. His post-2000 novels too, but in a more subtle way.

I will remember that next time I am in need of a book. Thanks for the recommendation! Know what I've always wanted to read? "Do androids dream of electric sheep" or whatever the book Blade Runner was inspired by is called.

 

[apophenia]

Philip K Dick wrote some great stuff. A truly driven visionary, who gave himself heaps of poetic licence. I think his best work was "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch". Also about similar themes, but in a very different way.

 

[otokage007]

This is the last post I will ever give you. You don't own a thread, you don't own ****. The best neuroscientists who study this do agree with what I say. Consciousness is not only awareness, what part of a scientific definition don't you get? Are you that thick?

I said it seems like magic, but in the universe you state to be true it's IMPOSSIBLE. Materialism is incomplete. Calling qualia flat earth shows how much of a fundamentalist materialist you are.

I'm done here.

Your pantheistic belief about the Earth and the universe being alive is poluting your scientific views, as religion always does.

 

[Pleroma]

I suggest u do some research so u can learn how genetic damage and brain damage can make u stop sensing sweetness, redness, smells, and any kind of sensory experience.

There are synaesthetic patients who claim to experience sweetness and other tastes when they hear sounds. For them your name "otokage" when pronounced and makes a particular kind of signal and stimulate their ears they experience a particular taste corresponding to your name, say for example, your name might taste like sweetness and this clear shows that sugar doesn't have the property of sweetness in the same way a photon doesn't have the property of colour. Molecules are not sweet, whatever sweetness is it is separate from the object we associate with it and we don't know what sweetness is.

Messing up with qualia doesn't explain what they are and if you argue qualia exists in our brains then my question is where exactly they are processed? Try again or accept that cognitive scientists don't have an explanation for qualia.

 

[MD]

Your pantheistic belief about the Earth and the universe being alive is poluting your scientific views, as religion always does.

First of all religion is a system. Belief is not. You have a belief as well, as you clearly displayed. It's the belief that the universe is dead. That's a belief. Now before you bring in crap like 'the burden of proof is on you' I did provide a reasonable argument. What's your argument? That it's illogical. Oh great rebuttal.

How about the fact that before the big bang there existed no time? Is that logical? Can you even begin to grasp such a concept? Or that there are 10^10^10^7 possible universes out there. That's more 0s than you could ever write in a lifetime. Can you imagine the possibilities that exist in each universe? Or that matter is basically a wave, like light. Perhaps you should be more open minded and humble.

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy'

 

[otokage007]

First of all religion is a system. Belief is not. You have a belief as well, as you clearly displayed. It's the belief that the universe is dead. That's a belief. Now before you bring in crap like 'the burden of proof is on you' I did provide a reasonable argument. What's your argument? That it's illogical. Oh great rebuttal.

How about the fact that before the big bang there existed no time? Is that logical? Can you even begin to grasp such a concept? Or that there are 10^10^10^7 possible universes out there. That's more 0s than you could ever write in a lifetime. Can you imagine the possibilities that exist in each universe? Or that matter is basically a wave, like light. Perhaps you should be more open minded and humble.

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy'

Your problem is that u are stating the existence of qualia is an argument against materialism. But you failed to explain yourself properly to make me understand this. So let me put it simple: basicly you are saying that subjective experience as color are our own interpretation, and this somehow means color isn't produced in the brain?

There are synaesthetic patients who claim to experience sweetness and other tastes when they hear sounds. For them your name "otokage" when pronounced and makes a particular kind of signal and stimulate their ears they experience a particular taste corresponding to your name, say for example, your name might taste like sweetness and this clear shows that sugar doesn't have the property of sweetness in the same way a photon doesn't have the property of colour. Molecules are not sweet, whatever sweetness is it is separate from the object we associate with it and we don't know what sweetness is.

Messing up with qualia doesn't explain what they are and if you argue qualia exists in our brains then my question is where exactly they are processed? Try again or accept that cognitive scientists don't have an explanation for qualia.

Molecules are "something" interpreted as sweet in our tonge. So why would you be wrong when saying they are indeed sweet?

 

[1137]

1. Subjective experience exists
2. Subjective experience being explained by the physical isn't magical enough.
Therefore subjective experience cannot be explained by the physical
3. Something must explain subjective experience.
Therefore consciousness is likely fundamental.

Find the problem.

 

[Pleroma]

Molecules are "something" interpreted as sweet in our tonge. So why would you be wrong when saying they are indeed sweet?

Molecules only interact with receptors in the tongue and change the conformation of the receptors in the tongue. Where is sweetness here?

The fact that synaesthetic subjects can experience sweetness even when no sugar molecules interact with their tongue shows that sweetness is something else.

 

[idav]

1. Subjective experience exists
2. Subjective experience being explained by the physical isn't magical enough.
Therefore subjective experience cannot be explained by the physical
3. Something must explain subjective experience.
Therefore consciousness is likely fundamental.

Find the problem.

Shahz was saying that explaining experience with just they physical is invoking magic while invoking qualia as some seperate type of substance is necessary to make it more logical. I still don't see how sensing physical things with physical process in the brain is magic.

Molecules only interact with receptors in the tongue and change the conformation of the receptors in the tongue. Where is sweetness here?

The fact that synaesthetic subjects can experience sweetness even when no sugar molecules interact with their tongue shows that sweetness is something else.

Sugars are the basics of photosynthesis and getting energy to organisms. Sweetness is a physical sensing of the sugar molecules needed for producing energy. Through evolution I don't find it very extraordinary that we can sense the substances we are trying to ingest for energy.

 

[otokage007]

The fact that synaesthetic subjects can experience sweetness even when no sugar molecules interact with their tongue shows that sweetness is something else.

Nothing but brain's interpretation of a signal produced when particular molecules interact with tonge receptors. Synaesthetic subjects have a brain problem that makes them cross-sensitive, wich means they perceive the same sensations when stimulli is presented to different sensors (for example, they can perceive sweetness when stimulli is presented to the tonge, but also when stimulli is presented to the eyes). So, why does this mean qualia are metaphysical?

 

[MD]

Shahz was saying that explaining experience with just they physical is invoking magic while invoking qualia as some seperate type of substance is necessary to make it more logical. I still don't see how sensing physical things with physical process in the brain is magic.

Okay the school of fish example is one example I gave. Another one would be a computer program (although I stronly disagree with the computational theory of mind, but I'll try to use this as an example).

Imagine you have a machine which analyzes data, let's say it analyzes light or dark. In the universe where the machine exists, there's simply light, dark and the machine. When it analyzes light or dark, it has an input. Now let's say the program has an output, to move an arm.

Light = move an arm.

Dark = do not move an arm.

Now let's say we leave this machine alone for billions of years. And let's say we somehow have a mechanism which allows random changes to the program. And that the machine reproduces. What you're saying is that billions of years after the original machine, through random mutations, it's descendants have created a rich array of colors so that red means move the arm halfway up, green means move the arm halfway down, blue means move it laterally etc.

The creation of colors themselves are novel. Such novel phenomenon are impossible in a universe simply made of light and dark and the machine. Thus there is another component to the universe which we didn't take into account previously. Either that or there is an outside programmer who has somehow input color into the machine (aka God).

 

[Pleroma]

Nothing but brain's interpretation of a signal produced when particular molecules interact with tonge receptors. Synaesthetic subjects have a brain problem that makes them cross-sensitive, wich means they perceive the same sensations when stimulli is presented to different sensors (for example, they can perceive sweetness when stimulli is presented to the tonge, but also when stimulli is presented to the eyes). So, why does this mean qualia are metaphysical?

It implies only one thing that sugar molecules don't have the attribute of sweetness just as a photon doesn't have the attribute of colour. You can't quantify sweetness or redness.

 

[idav]

Okay the school of fish example is one example I gave. Another one would be a computer program (although I stronly disagree with the computational theory of mind, but I'll try to use this as an example).

Imagine you have a machine which analyzes data, let's say it analyzes light or dark. In the universe where the machine exists, there's simply light, dark and the machine. When it analyzes light or dark, it has an input. Now let's say the program has an output, to move an arm.

Light = move an arm.

Dark = do not move an arm.

Now let's say we leave this machine alone for billions of years. And let's say we somehow have a mechanism which allows random changes to the program. And that the machine reproduces. What you're saying is that billions of years after the original machine, through random mutations, it's descendants have created a rich array of colors so that red means move the arm halfway up, green means move the arm halfway down, blue means move it laterally etc.

I'm not really following. Sensing isn't created. Sensing is a reaction to stimuli which results in experiencing something. A light wave and/ or sound wave is decoded in the brain as stimuli. We don't really know if that is what light looks like or sound sounds like, it is the experience we get which allows us to have reaction to the stimuli whether it be heat, sound, light or any other physical attributes.

The creation of colors themselves are novel. Such novel phenomenon are impossible in a universe simply made of light and dark and the machine. Thus there is another component to the universe which we didn't take into account previously. Either that or there is an outside programmer who has somehow input color into the machine (aka God).

Color is a product of light existing. It isn't invented, it exists.