Maintaining a thesis at all costs

[sayak83]

Not really.
No, A 'Supercomputer' Did NOT Pass The Turing Test For The First Time And Everyone Should Know Better

Further, a line from the page you linked "We are therefore proud to declare that Alan Turing's Test was passed for the first time on Saturday." This validates my point that a conscious being will have to validate (fate or true) the result.

And finally emulation is not self consciousness. (Note: We can discuss "Buddhi, Manas, Ahankar, and Chitta separately in another thread. Because intelligence is not only the intellect).

You asked for the Turing test. It has been passed. As I said, its not considered a very good test for AI as humans are easy to fool. This is the GO playing and Deep Mind types of AI are the kind of machines one would consider to have matched and exceeded the intelligence and learning abilities of humans. The self-driving car system is also a case in point.

Regarding your contention that only conscious people can certify others are conscious, that is not a good argument. Entities possess some property P by virtue of their nature of configuration. Another entity can know this fact only by interacting appropriately with the entity in question. It's not a question of certification, but rather a question of knowing that which something already has.

Not saying that Turing test does any such thing. It's not an appropriate criteria. The best way to know an intelligent system is to observe it function in a challenging open ended environment, self driving cars would be a good candidate.

Anyways, if you are betting that humans can't create conscious machines, I believe that you will be proved wrong in a few decades. However, I am curious as to why you think we can't create conscious machines?

 

[sayak83]

I am a geochemist. I see evolution and diversification of life forms through geological age.

But then, I just checked up WIKI regarding abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

A line in the beginning reads: On Earth, the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event but a gradual process of increasing complexity.

From the above, it seems that abiogenesis is a proven fact. Is that correct? This is state of affairs. Those who write about science do not follow the scientific rigour.

Pretty sure Wikipedia is not written by scientists. I am in organic chemistry and follow the research in abiogenesis somewhat. Nothing has been proved, but there has been excellent progress in the last 10 years.

 

[shunyadragon]

From the above, it seems that abiogenesis is a proven fact. Is that correct? This is state of affairs. Those who write about science do not follow the scientific rigour.

Most definitely not proven, both the present state of the knowledge of science both evolution and abiogenesis represent the only explanations that fit the evidence available.

 

[shunyadragon]

You asked for the Turing test. It has been passed. As I said, its not considered a very good test for AI as humans are easy to fool. This is the GO playing and Deep Mind types of AI are the kind of machines one would consider to have matched and exceeded the intelligence and learning abilities of humans. The self-driving car system is also a case in point.

Regarding your contention that only conscious people can certify others are conscious, that is not a good argument. Entities possess some property P by virtue of their nature of configuration. Another entity can know this fact only by interacting appropriately with the entity in question. It's not a question of certification, but rather a question of knowing that which something already has.

Not saying that Turing test does any such thing. It's not an appropriate criteria. The best way to know an intelligent system is to observe it function in a challenging open ended environment, self driving cars would be a good candidate.

Anyways, if you are betting that humans can't create conscious machines, I believe that you will be proved wrong in a few decades. However, I am curious as to why you think we can't create conscious machines?

Famous last words, "Science cannot possibly achieve this or that." Actually the development of consciousness in machines is well within the possibility of the near future.

 

[atanu]

Anyways, if you are betting that humans can't create conscious machines, I believe that you will be proved wrong in a few decades. However, I am curious as to why you think we can't create conscious machines?

I linked you to a page that refutes that Turing test was passed.

Let me ask a question first. Are you a votary of Naturalism or a Charvakism or a Lokyata-ism? No problem there but I need to understand your view first.

There is a kind of arrogance in thinking of so called naturalists (which started with Charvaks in India). On one hand, they say that the intelligence is nothing but physical neuronal activity -- which means that it came up on its own and cannot provide objective means of arriving at truth. A person cannot have control over intelligence that came up via unknown mechanism with unknown agenda.

On the other hand, they claim to be privy to the truth and to be possessing superior intellect than the so-called believers.

I request that when a proof of lab created intelligent life is presented, I will be able to comment.

 

[atanu]

Famous last words, "Science cannot possibly achieve this or that." Actually the development of consciousness in machines is well within the possibility of the near future.

Why not? Still it is an optimistic hope. And the Self awareness that we are endowed with is given.

 

[shunyadragon]

???
But you are rejecting the final teaching. I cannot understand how his abstract view of consciousness does not affect rest of his work. By negating consciousness altogether he avoids answering the so-called hard problem of consciousness.

He does not reject consciousness all together. In fact he believes consciousness and human will arise through natural processes, evolution.

If I try to impose my idea, built upon the assumption that abiogenesis is already proven, I create unrest. It is indeed like proselytism.

Abiogenesis is not already proven, because science does not prove anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why not? Still it is an optimistic hope. And the Self awareness that we are endowed with is given.

Self-awareness we are endowed with is given? This is a theological/philosophical assumption, and not remotely in the realm of science,

 

[shunyadragon]

A side note on the possible future of artificial intelligence. I do not believe that our present computer technology can fully achieve this. I believe the future will be modeling the neurological network of the human brain using a fractal multiple pathway model that would closely simulate our brain.

 

[atanu]

Pretty sure Wikipedia is not written by scientists. I am in organic chemistry and follow the research in abiogenesis somewhat. Nothing has been proved, but there has been excellent progress in the last 10 years.

Nice to hear that you are in organic chemistry. I thought you were from physics.

I am a geochemist myself. At present I work with geochemistry, palynology, palaeontology and some other related fields.

 

[atanu]

Self-awareness we are endowed with is given? This is a theological/philosophical assumption, and not remotely in the realm of science,

What, are you not self aware right now? I mean that by 'given'. I mean that you do not have to contest the fact that self awareness is evident.

 

[atanu]

A side note on the possible future of artificial intelligence. I do not believe that our present computer technology can fully achieve this. I believe the future will be modeling the neurological network of the human brain using a fractal multiple pathway model that would closely simulate our brain.

Possible. Humans can surely do it. But again, self aware intelligence is a given fact with humans. No conjecture is required.

 

[atanu]

He does not reject consciousness all together. In fact he believes consciousness and human will arise through natural processes, evolution....

Not exactly. He does not say that these subjective feelings etc. arise but he maintains that these are just the neuronal activities. There is no second thing arising. He is a strict monist.

 

[shunyadragon]

What, are you not self aware right now? I mean that by 'given'. I mean that you do not have to contest the fact that self awareness is evident.

I am assuming now that you mean it is 'a given.' If humans are able to simulate a brain with consciousness and a will self-awareness would be a given as a result.

 

[sayak83]

Let me ask a question first. Are you a votary of Naturalism or a Charvakism or a Lokyata-ism? No problem there but I need to understand your view first.

There is a kind of arrogance in thinking of so called naturalists (which started with Charvaks in India). On one hand, they say that the intelligence is nothing but physical neuronal activity -- which means that it came up on its own and cannot provide objective means of arriving at truth. A person cannot have control over intelligence that came up via unknown mechanism with unknown agenda.

On the other hand, they claim to be privy to the truth and to be possessing superior intellect than the so-called believers.

I request that when a proof of lab created intelligent life is presented, I will be able to comment.

No.
I believe that there is a trans-material, trans-mental fundamental substrate called Brahman (or Dao if you look at Daoism, or Ashe if you look at Yorba) out of which both material and mental phenomena emerge, as well as abstract structures that bind them.. like math and logic. Like a three-spoked wheel, the material, mental and abstract structures emerge out of the central axis of Brahman and move in synchrony with each other to hold the "rim" of the phenomenal world we call reality.

While the three realms (material, mental and abstract) are derived from Brahman and in turn form the basis of the world of shape and form and activity, and thus Brahman is more fundamental than all of them.. unlike Sankara I believe that the entire wheel, with its rims, spokes and axle, is real. Thus this world of diversified phenomena is real (though derivative) and is founded upon the real realms of material, mental and the abstract... and they three are derived from the fundamental reality essence, Brahman, that transcends all three.

Equally importantly, the material, mental and abstract realms is equipositioned, all derived from Brahman and none more fundamental than another. They may be viewed as the three strands or qualities (gunas) that weave the world of shape and form and action. That is why a mathematician can see a mathematical dimension to all things, a spiritual yogi sees a mental dimension to all things and a physicalist sees a physical dimension to all things. Specializing in each other these "knowing modes" can lead a jnani to move into more and more fundamental unifying realms, creating deep insights. But focusing on one mode exclusively will lead to problems explaining one of these realms in terms of the other. The Hard Problem of Consciousness, problems of how Mathematics and material world are related, or how Pure Mind can generate the diversified forms of matter are all symptoms on not taking on board the reality of the other realms. Only by a synoptic investigation of the material, mental and abstract realms together can one get a full picture which, at the base, leads to Brahman.

 

[atanu]

No.
I believe that there is a trans-material, trans-mental fundamental substrate called Brahman (or Dao if you look at Daoism, or Ashe if you look at Yorba) out of which both material and mental phenomena emerge, as well as abstract structures that bind them.. like math and logic. Like a three-spoked wheel, the material, mental and abstract structures emerge out of the central axis of Brahman and move in synchrony with each other to hold the "rim" of the phenomenal world we call reality.

While the three realms (material, mental and abstract) are derived from Brahman and in turn form the basis of the world of shape and form and activity, and thus Brahman is more fundamental than all of them.. unlike Sankara I believe that the entire wheel, with its rims, spokes and axle, is real. Thus this world of diversified phenomena is real (though derivative) and is founded upon the real realms of material, mental and the abstract... and they three are derived from the fundamental reality essence, Brahman, that transcends all three.

Equally importantly, the material, mental and abstract realms is equipositioned, all derived from Brahman and none more fundamental than another. They may be viewed as the three strands or qualities (gunas) that weave the world of shape and form and action. That is why a mathematician can see a mathematical dimension to all things, a spiritual yogi sees a mental dimension to all things and a physicalist sees a physical dimension to all things. Specializing in each other these "knowing modes" can lead a jnani to move into more and more fundamental unifying realms, creating deep insights. But focusing on one mode exclusively will lead to problems explaining one of these realms in terms of the other. The Hard Problem of Consciousness, problems of how Mathematics and material world are related, or how Pure Mind can generate the diversified forms of matter are all symptoms on not taking on board the reality of the other realms. Only by a synoptic investigation of the material, mental and abstract realms together can one get a full picture which, at the base, leads to Brahman.

I go by Shankara and may differ with you in some detail. But we seem to agree overall.

 

[atanu]

I am assuming now that you mean it is 'a given.' If humans are able to simulate a brain with consciousness and a will self-awareness would be a given as a result.

May be.

But we do it through offsprings. Haha.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nice to hear that you are in organic chemistry. I thought you were from physics.

I am a geochemist myself. At present I work with geochemistry, palynology, palaeontology and some other related fields.

My field was soil science and hydrogeology with a specialty in environmental geology and geomorphology. I worked for environmental engineering firms on site evaluation and clean up mostly as a well drilling supervisor logging holes and sampling of the soil and rock from the drilling of the wells and water sampling. I also did computer modeling for site evaluations and cleanup plans. Most of my work was with closing old service stations, petroleum distributors, and dry cleaning facilities in North Carolina. I was also a certified OSHA supervisor. I had a good background in organic chemistry, petroleum and industrial chemistry, and geochemistry.

 

[shunyadragon]

May be.

But we do it through offsprings. Haha.

That would be the easiest way, with proven results.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not exactly. He does not say that these subjective feelings etc. arise but he maintains that these are just the neuronal activities. There is no second thing arising. He is a strict monist.

I disagree as to what his views on this are, but I will go back and read more. I do not believe he makes the distinction you assert. There is some what of a contradiction in your first two sentences.