MIND Exchange

Sort: [Threaded | Date]

Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 1:54 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Ok, Artificial Intelligence is real. How intelligent can it be? From a technical perspective, this question is very interesting, but from a philosophical perspective, it is much less exciting.

What about artificial consciousness? Now this is far more interesting philosophically! The problem is, consciousness is a bastard to define. Even though everyone can’t agree on a definition for it, I will proceed with the acceptance that we all know what it is.

So, is artificial consciousness possible? I say no.

Most advocates of artificial consciousness believe it is simply a matter of accuracy. If the simulation of a human brain reaches sufficient accuracy, consciousness will emerge. As Kurzweil puts it, everything is a pattern. If the pattern of a mind can be reproduced on a different medium than the brain-stuff in our heads, it will be just as conscious as we are (sorry Mr. Kurzweil, I am paraphrasing from memory).

The problem I have is that by removing it from the medium of brain-stuff, you are also removing it from the space, time and essence of causality that is coupled with the atoms, molecules and cells of the brain.

For example, lets look at the simulation of a space shuttle navigating in orbit. Everyone accepts this simulation takes place in virtual space. It also takes place in virtual time. The simulation’s execution time is tied to the speed of the computer it is running on. It can be paused, slowed down, etc. The fact that it takes place in real-time is irrelevant. The virtual-time is as unrelated to real-time as the virtual-space is unrelated to the place on your desk the computer is sitting. In fact, every bit of information -- every aspect of the pattern involved -- can be recorded in a printout that has no element of time at all! We must regard the simulation as simply information.

Can these same ideas be applied to a simulation of the brain? Suppose we have a theoretical conscious machine running on a massively parallel system. What is different from the space shuttle simulation that we may no longer just consider the simulated system simply information?

Can consciousness exist in something as abstract as data? Could a static book that details a 2 second simulated episode in the brain be conscious? Is the passing of time required for consciousness?

The problem is that consciousness is intrinsically tied to the causal properties of the matter in our brains. Reducing that causality to computational rules turns it into data. Space, time and matter, as well as their causal interactions, are all meshed into the same medium. Removing the pattern from that medium removes it from each and all of these elements.

The postulation of artificial consciousness is a ridiculous over-simplification of the very nature of time and causality -- both of which we only understand from a peripheral perspective. We may not be able to define consciousness very well, but we only need to know that it requires the passing of time to know a discrete computer cannot be made conscious.
[Reply]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 2:38 AM by subtillioN
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Hi Leodegan! long time no see!

I have a quick comment wrt the following quote:

The problem I have is that by removing it from the medium of brain-stuff, you are also removing it from the space, time and essence of causality that is coupled with the atoms, molecules and cells of the brain.

In a unified reality there can be only one type of “ultimate stuff”. This stuff is continuous and infinitely divisible/malleable. The same stuff composing the electro/magnetic/chemical fields/gradients/oscillations etc of a conscious brain would be in operation in any other “artificially” conscious entity. Electro/magnetic fields are electro/magnetic fields no matter where they come from. The trick is to use this very same stuff to “generate” or organize the correct type of patterns which are consciousness.

Regards,
sub…

[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 11:50 PM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Hey Subtillion,

I'm glad to see you are still active around here :-)

The trick is to use this very same stuff to "generate" or organize the correct type of patterns which are consciousness.

The problem is that it is just a simulation of "the stuff". Even though the material in a computer resides in the same Universe with the same flow of causality, the processes that occur in a computer are logical abstractions, with discrete properties. They take place in virtual-time and virtual-space, with causal laws that are only mathematical interpretations of our physical universe. A computer-based intelligence is simply a logical expression, with no real indigenous coupling to the flow of time.

Do you believe the flow of time is required for consciousness, or can a complex logical abstraction be conscious?

Leodegan
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 1:14 PM by subtillioN
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

The problem is that it is just a simulation of "the stuff". Even though the material in a computer resides in the same Universe with the same flow of causality, the processes that occur in a computer are logical abstractions, with discrete properties. They take place in virtual-time and virtual-space, with causal laws that are only mathematical interpretations of our physical universe.

Exactly. This is the core problem with discrete and linear symbolic logical representations of ultimately continuous and transfinitely complex processes.

A computer-based intelligence is simply a logical expression, with no real indigenous coupling to the flow of time.

Do you believe the flow of time is required for consciousness

The flow of time is required for existence, period. If the flow is channeled into logical/linear discrete symbolic abstractions it has a definite impact on the functionality of the resulting patterns.

or can a complex logical abstraction be conscious?

I don’t think it can, but I have only known VASTLY simple logical abstractions. I may easily be proven wrong when computing power gets ramped up exponentially and different strategies are evolved.

Next post:

I’m not sure I follow this. If it is a different type of consciousness, how can we say it exists at all?

We first have to understand that consciousness is not an all or nothing thing. It is part of the continuum of possible designs.

What means of classification do we have for types of consciousnesses?

We have a VERY limited experience with types of consciousness. When we have modified our own and built or evolved new types then we will be forced to develop some sort of categorical scheme. It will happen.

Regards,
sub...
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 2:48 AM by subtillioN
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

The problem is that consciousness is intrinsically tied to the causal properties of the matter in our brains. Reducing that causality to computational rules turns it into data. Space, time and matter, as well as their causal interactions, are all meshed into the same medium. Removing the pattern from that medium removes it from each and all of these elements.

BTW, I agree with you that simulated consciousness will not ultimately be the same type of consciousness it is simulating for the same reasons that causality cannot be broken down to any finite set of rules or states. Causality is continuous and unlimited whereas our logics are discrete and limited.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 11:51 PM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

I agree with you that simulated consciousness will not ultimately be the same type of consciousness it is simulating

I’m not sure I follow this. If it is a different type of consciousness, how can we say it exists at all? What means of classification do we have for types of consciousnesses?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 7:20 AM by Marcel
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Of course this would be right for SIMULATED artificial consciousness. But why should it be a simulation? Our own consciousness is the product of a kind of "realtime-data-processing" closely linked to our brain and body. There are two different types of human consciousness. The first one could be called "feeling-consciousness" and is the product of our senses. This kind of consciouness is not specifical human but can be found in some higher developed animals, too. The second one is the "thinking-consciousness". This is the ability to controll your thoughts.
In nature, animals become more conscious the higher developed their brains are. Less developed animals like mice only have the "type1-consciousness" but humans and perhaps some apes have the "type2-consciousness", too(studies show that some apes have very basic reason abilitys). So consciousness is a matter of brain complexity. When computers will reach the complexity of the human brain (probably in the 2020s) they will have the ability to become conscious like we are. There might be the limitation that the AIs will need a body because consciousness is closely linked to our bodys as I said above. But there is no logical reason why artificial consciousness should be impossible. Don't forget:Humans are not artificial but they are (biological) machines and it is only a question of time to rebuild everything we are in an artificial form.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 8:39 AM by griffman
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

to repeat what everyone has said, a simulation of consiousness would be imposible for the disattachment to time and space as you said. But being conscious involves data input through senses that must be part of the conscious medium. without them there is no consciousness, can't be.

our consiousness stems from our Biological complex system. If it is posible to reach the same level of complexity in another medium (say silicon) then consiousness should be posible on that other medium. the causual rules that govern the complex system exists for both mediums. Its the complexity of the ordered structure that gives rise to consiousness (with the senses). the level of complexity in non biological systems has been shown to be posible. we must now work out the order and structure of the complex system that gives rise to consciousness (the program) including sensory input, pattern recognition, memory, etc. this is what AI research is for. the medium will be available when we are ready to use it. posibly multiple different mediums.

although..... a simulation of consciousness could be constructed if a simulation of an environment for sensory input was created to a sufficiently complex level. this is massively more complex than a simple brain. It would likely come after we have constructed an AC. not before. this would be the Matrix style and would probably be similar in scale (though I would hope the powerplant would take up less space)

now another posibility would be a faster, more powerfull yet less complex system with included sensory inputs, simulating to the chemical/atomic level and structure a human brain and feeding in the outside inputs to their proper receptors. this is a greater level of dificulty since we would be simulating a highly parallel system on a compartively linier machine. also we would have what amounts to a man in a room with only a wall of TV's reading out sensory information. a bit of disatachment. posibly enough to prohibit the emergence of consiousness (but then who would be in the room?)

to play my own devil's advocate. because of the atomic/chemical properties of the constructed medium would be different from the atomic/chemical properties of our brain, would that make the variable ranges of choice (those selected by the chemical solutions) so different as to not allow consicousness? would the variation be more or less for our selected medium? if there was greater variable ranges in a logical system would that provide more solutions to choice, making it more conscious than man? or would it cause it to fail?

we do not understand the variable ranges of choice within our own brain. though I believe this knowledge will come along with the work on AI.

SO GET CRACKING 8).

griffman
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 11:55 PM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Griffman,

I will lead with the same question as Marcel: what is the difference between simulated consciousness and the consciousness arising out of a computer system?

Remember, computers are simply tools of logical computation--like a notebook and pencil, just far more powerful and efficient. Massively parallel systems follow the same discrete principles; they are just more complex and a bit more difficult to conceptualize.

Can logical abstractions really be conscious?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 11:53 PM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Marcel,

Of course this would be right for SIMULATED artificial consciousness. But why should it be a simulation?

What is the conceptual difference between simulated consciousness and the consciousness contained within an AI? Is the AI not ultimately a simulation of the human brain? I’m not sure what the distinction you are leading to is.

Don't forget:Humans are not artificial but they are (biological) machines and it is only a question of time to rebuild everything we are in an artificial form.

Your statement tells me you are optimistic about technological advances, and that you do not see any conceptual problems with artificial consciousness. I would differ with you in that I do see a conceptual problem.

In general, I do not feel the appeal to human progress is a compelling argument. Predictions in technological and scientific advancements have historically been a very erroneous endeavor. The wheels of progress may continue to turn, but there are some roads that simply do not exist.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/03/2003 4:58 AM by Marcel
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

[ Is the AI not ultimately a simulation of the human brain?]

The AI is not a simulation of the human brain but a system that is build upon the principle of complex biological systems. AIs will have own "brains".
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 12:01 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Marcel,

The AI is not a simulation of the human brain but a system that is build upon the principle of complex biological systems. AIs will have own "brains".

I’m going to try and avoid getting caught in a word game. If I understand you, ANNs are modeled after the human brain and its biological complexity, but they are not a simulation of it. If they were merely a simulation of it, they would not be conscious.

So, if a development team were interested in creating artificial consciousness, would you suggest it is a waste of time to create an accurate computer simulation of the human brain, including imitating the neural behaviors and feedback mechanisms, as well as the exact clustering and internetworking of the neurons? How does this sort of simulation fall short where another AI would succeed in obtaining consciousness?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 12:17 PM by Marcel
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Leodegan,

perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. Of course you need to understand the structure of the human brain and the behaviour and internetworking of neurons. To understand this better it will be useful to create a complex simulation of these processes. But this is only the way to understand consciousness and intelligence. If you would run this simulation on a sufficient powerful computer it would perhaps be intelligent but probably not be conscious.
This is what we're doing today. We create artificial neural nets only as software so a digital processor tries to imitate non-digital processes. This is inefficient and of course not the same thing as in living organisms. AI will probably not evolve by using these technologies.
A better way is to create artificial neural nets based und neural hardware. Today it's impossible to do this on a large scale but it will be possible in a few decades (I guess in the 2020/30s) by using nanotechnology like nature does. These nanotech-AIs will use the neural codes of human brains running on hardware copies of the human brain. They will have the same non-digital computing systems like we have but their hardware (I think we could call it brain at this stage of development) will be 100million times more powerful if it has the same size as the human brain. There is no logical reason why these AIs should not be conscious and because of this they should have the same civil rights as human beeings.

I hope it gets clearer this time :-)

Marcel Lossi

[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/06/2003 2:01 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Marcel,

They will have the same non-digital computing systems like we have but their hardware (I think we could call it brain at this stage of development) will be 100million times more powerful if it has the same size as the human brain.

A non-digital computer? You mean like a slide-rule?

Seriously, does such a machine exist? Are you talking about quantum computers, or something else entirely? How much science fiction are your assertions depending on?

[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/06/2003 6:39 AM by Marcel
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

This is no science fiction. Neural hardware based neural nets are no digital computers. Biological brains for exaple use digital controlled analogue processing. You can use the same structures in your technology. There are lots of scientists around the world trying to build systems working like their biological counterpart (for example Carver Mead, the "inventor" of the microprocessor uses organic analogue chips to produce super-efficient CCDs). Other attemps towards non-analogue computing are DNA-computers and of course the quantum-computers you named.
By the way: There were successful experiments showing that it is possible to connect biological neurons with artificial neurons and the resulting cybernetic neural nets worked like natural ones. The only problem is that we don't have the technology to build these structures on a large scale today.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/06/2003 10:01 AM by Marcel
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Take a look at "The Brain" for more on analoge computers.

Hope to hear of you soon...
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/07/2003 12:58 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Marcel,

Take a look at "The Brain" for more on analoge computers.

I will concede that my argument really only applies to computers. I'm basically making the point that human consciousness is non-computational--that the strong-AI postulate is false. If some other machine is invented that is not computational, and not a Turing Machine, then the specific argument I presented may not apply.

Having said that, I was not able to find anything that led me to believe there exists any such technology that would be a good prospect of being a "consciousness machine". From a functional perspective, there is nothing analog computers can do that digital computers cannot do. They just do certain functions much more efficiently.

If you know of any machine that is non-computational and can be applied to AI, send me a link and I will take a look.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/07/2003 10:22 AM by grantcc
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Have you read Jaron Lanier's article in Edge Magazine: (www.edge.org)? He proposes a more bilogical approach to the problem.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/07/2003 10:38 AM by Marcel
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Leodegan,

I think there is a basic mistake in your concept. You said that your argument only applies to computers but the human brain is a kind of computer, too. It is not a Turing Machine but who has said that computational processes can only take place in Turing Machines? Digital computers are Turing Machines and they will never become conscious beings. Simulated neural nets as they are used today in speech recognition systems are still Turing Machines because they are only simulations. Neural hardware based neural nets like biological brains are no Turing Machines but they are still computers. As I said above, studies have shown that you can connect biological neurons with special computer chips and the resulting cybernetic neural net works like pure biological neural nets. If you copy the behaviour of theses cybernetic nets into pure technological nets you can see the same “thinking-structure”. The “programs” of these nets do not only use 0 and 1 like digital computers but the steps in between, too. This experiment shows that neurons are computers although they are no Turing Machines. The sum of many computers is, well, a computer. For more on this you should read “We are spiritual machines. Ray Kurzweil versus the critics of strong AI”. The whole book is published on this site.
But there is one problem remaining. We don’t have a definition of consciousness and there is no real way to proof if a system is conscious. For some people (like me) consciousness is the result of supercomplex neural nets for others it’s the result of a metaphysical soul. I the end it remains a philosophical question we cannot answer.

Marcel Lossi

[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/07/2003 10:00 PM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Marcel,

You said that your argument only applies to computers but the human brain is a kind of computer, too.

I believe you are defining the word "computer" more liberally than the meaning I was intending in my previous post. The human mind may be able to compute things (and could therefore be referred to as a computer), but that does not mean the human mind is entirely computational.

As I said above, studies have shown that you can connect biological neurons with special computer chips and the resulting cybernetic neural net works like pure biological neural nets...... This experiment shows that neurons are computers although they are no Turing Machines.

You are overstating the results of these experiments. You can certainly make the point that we can transmit signals to and from neurons using electronic devices, but that is a far cry from stating that the electronic device is qualitatively identical to the neuron.

The sum of many computers is, well, a computer. For more on this you should read "We are spiritual machines. Ray Kurzweil versus the critics of strong AI". The whole book is published on this site.

I have read most of this book at one time or another. Do you recall which chapter and which section you are referring to?

We don’t have a definition of consciousness and there is no real way to proof if a system is conscious. For some people (like me) consciousness is the result of supercomplex neural nets for others it’s the result of a metaphysical soul. I the end it remains a philosophical question we cannot answer.

This we can agree on. The argument I am posing is really about what the human mind is, and not what software is. It is a metaphysical question, not a technology one.

The science of consciousness is limited to the functional aspects that can be empirically verified. Whether that is all there is to consciousness is a philosophical question that will never be proven (just like the questions of God and freewill). We can only rely on our powers of intuition for the answer.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/08/2003 5:24 AM by Marcel
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

I'm referring to chapter 7-9.

Perhaps we can solve the consciousness problem by using logic. We all can agree that human consciousness is a function of the human brain (where else should it come from???). The human brain is based upon atoms and it works within the limitation of natural laws. Therefore it can be copied by using the same components as before. According to physics the copy will be the same as the original. Perhaps future AI might inhabit an organic component to create a non-human conscious being.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/07/2003 10:42 AM by Marcel
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Oops, I forgot the link to the book I named. Here it is:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=19
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 5:03 PM by billmerit
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

I have a question for you: Is a worm conscious?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 5:44 PM by /:setAI
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

I have a question for you: Is a worm conscious?

I have a question for you: who do you feel has the knowledge to say if a worm has some form of "consciousness" or not?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 6:44 PM by Ribald
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

The early bird of course...
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/03/2003 7:20 AM by billmerit
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

I thought this would be a simple question. Apparently not. If we can't agree on whether a worm is conscious, how will we ever agree on whether a trillion zigahetz superAI machine is conscious?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/02/2003 11:57 PM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Is a worm conscious?

I am very curious as to where this question is leading. I suspect not, although I will mention I do believe there are many animals that have a sophisticated consciousness, such as primates, dolphins, and my pet dog.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/03/2003 1:47 AM by sequoia
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Leo:

You don't understand anything about consciousness.

Hit the books.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/03/2003 2:14 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Sequoia,

You don't understand anything about consciousness.

What exactly is your purpose for this statement?

Hit the books.

Which book exactly? Would you have me read Dennett? Crick? Searle? Penrose? Edelman? Chalmers? Perhaps you could explain to the world which one of these conflicting authors is correct so I know I am reading the truth on the matter.

My guess is that you support HOT theories of consciousness if you believe that other animals cannot be conscious. I am willing to challenge that position if you hold it. Of course your post was so vague, I really have very little idea where you are coming from.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/03/2003 4:02 AM by sequoia
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

I apologize for the arrogance of my post. I get twitchy about this time of night.

Those guys are all good and have all contributed something. I like Minsky too.

I do believe that animals are conscious, but I don't think debating animal consciousness is particularly interesting, and for most people it just leads to confusion. Besides, we're animals and can examine our own species to find variations of consciousness.

Consciousness is not some gift bestowed upon big-brained creatures for God's amusement; it is a tool with an evolutionary purpose (survival). I know you know that and I know it's obvious--just bare with me.

Studying higher forms of consciousness (conscience, for example) is a dead end. Academics forget that at one point they themselves were not people of conscience; they did not experience empathy. We are not born empathic--we acquire the skill through development. Studying lower forms of consciousness seems to be a dead end because it doesn't address qualia.

sigh. qualia.
Academia can't see the forest for the trees.

The neurologist stimulates a portion of a patient's brain, making his arm move. The neurologist asks the patient why he moved his hand. The patient responds: "Because I wanted to." Everyone knows this study, but most seem blind to the implications.

Read neurological studies. Watch kids' (and babies') cognitive development. Study people with developmental disorders. Study people with psychiatric disabilities and substance abuse.

Play with drugs and alcohol to experience first hand experience with neurological impairment. Problems of qualia will disolve away as your senses fail. Are you still conscious? Sure, but just barely. You become MORE conscious as the drugs wear off and you reaquire the ability to regain your senses (aquire environmental data). As your ability to aquire and manipulate data obtained from the environment increases, you rise from a conscious being to a conscience being.

Consciousness is not a magical state humans slip into sometime in their development; it is a measure of people's ability to manipulate data and act accordingly to maintain their survival and it is a SPECTRUM. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing about consciousness.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 12:04 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Sequoia,

Thank you for your response.

You seem to me to be in the functionalist camp.

The neurologist stimulates a portion of a patient's brain, making his arm move. The neurologist asks the patient why he moved his hand. The patient responds: "Because I wanted to." Everyone knows this study, but most seem blind to the implications.

It seems to me the implication is that human mind was not designed (either intelligently or naturally, which ever you happen to believe) to deal with that situation, so it is simply tricked. Of course, the human mind can be tricked/manipulated/coerced a number of different ways. Torture has been known to alter a person’s sense of intention.

Play with drugs and alcohol to experience first hand experience with neurological impairment.

Certainly our conscious experience is at the mercy of our environment. The difference between using some mind-altering drug and getting dropped into a pool of freezing water is that the change in environment is a lot closer to home. They are both extreme changes in conscious experience.

I’m not sure I follow your statement that "Problems of qualia will disolve away as your senses fail." Are you suggesting that it is possible to be conscious and not experience qualia? My drug use has been limited, but I find this hard to believe. It seems you are making the assertion that the senses are required for qualia, but then how do you explain the qualia that is part of a dream state? Sorry if I am off track here in understanding what you are trying to say.

it is a measure of people's ability to manipulate data and act accordingly to maintain their survival and it is a SPECTRUM. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing about consciousness.

Sorry, but to me this statement doesn’t really say much. Are you saying that anything that can manipulate data and act accordingly to maintain their survival is conscious? Are the bots I shoot at in the game Quake conscious under that definition?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/03/2003 5:45 AM by educatorsw1
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Hello,
I'm new to this particular forum, but here goes. I'm not so sure that I'm sold on artificial consciousness. First of all, the term consciousness seems to suggest some type of unassisted existence. While machines and computers have come along way from the days of old I still see the need they have for the human interaction to simply exist.
What I mean is a human being can exist without interaction. No one has to tell him/her what to do and they can still survive, but machines have a dependecny because they are the product of what someone thought or dreamed about.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/03/2003 8:38 AM by griffman
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

While machines and computers have come along way from the days of old I still see the need they have for the human interaction to simply exist.
What I mean is a human being can exist without interaction. No one has to tell him/her what to do and they can still survive, but machines have a dependecny because they are the product of what someone thought or dreamed about.

you are a product of someone's thoughts. a twinkle in your mothers eye? as the saying goes. our programming has been built over eons with the instructions for survival. those instructions have not been of any use in a computer system, untill recently.

think of the systems on a deep space probe..... there are some instructions within certain probes to activate automaic procedures if there is a detected problem. is this not a low level of consciousness? remember, instict is a PROGRAMED response.

computers do only as they are instructed because thats how they were designed. if we instruct a computer to survive on its own and design system that can accomplish this goal. what makes it different than a human?

there is a gradient for consciousness.

what is the difference between simulated consciousness and the consciousness arising out of a computer system?

the difference is the environment providing stimulus. the consciousness programming would probably be the same. the physical difference then become a machine capable of taking in sufficient stimuli from the real world and processing it through the conscious program, and a machine capable of running a conscious program to recieve stimuli AND generate the Stimuli for the conscious program to recieve, at the same time. a Bot in a simulated world or a robot in this world.

Is the AI not ultimately a simulation of the human brain?
the human brain is the model we have to design from. AI does not have to be an identical construction. more than likely it wont be.

Remember, computers are simply tools of logical computation--like a notebook and pencil, just far more powerful and efficient. Massively parallel systems follow the same discrete principles; they are just more complex and a bit more difficult to conceptualize.

Can logical abstractions really be conscious?

sorry to break it to you but,.... you are a logical abstraction. a tool for logical computation. there is no such thing as an illogical system. there can be illogical solutions, but thats simply a wrong answer. to conceptualize a complex parallel system just takes a change of perspective. a skill well within our grasp.

The wheels of progress may continue to turn, but there are some roads that simply do not exist.
this road does exist.. you are living proof of this. the predictions give only a date that something can be attained, not if it can or cannot be done.

why does there have to be this misterious piece of our existence that cannot be attained through logic. why must we believe that it cannot be reached simply because of what breaks down to only be the will of God? why must this change our relationship with God (the universe... hello?!)? I say it doesn't. which is why I believe it to be attainable.

so I ask you: what is the conceptual problem?

griffman
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 12:10 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Griffman,

the difference is the environment providing stimulus. the consciousness programming would probably be the same. the physical difference then become a machine capable of taking in sufficient stimuli from the real world and processing it through the conscious program, and a machine capable of running a conscious program to recieve stimuli AND generate the Stimuli for the conscious program to recieve, at the same time. a Bot in a simulated world or a robot in this world.

If I understand you then, you are saying the environment an AI is placed in must be interactive in order for the AI to experience consciousness? So, if I hook an AI up to an array of sensory inputs that give it the sensory that it is riding a roller coaster in an amusement park, that AI cannot be conscious unless it also has outputs that feedback into that environment? Why would that be?

sorry to break it to you but,.... you are a logical abstraction. a tool for logical computation. there is no such thing as an illogical system. there can be illogical solutions, but thats simply a wrong answer.

You clearly believe that everything can be quantified. In your mind there is nothing that can be neither logical nor illogical--or simply, unstructured. This is compatible with your apparent belief that there is nothing in existence that cannot be conquered by science and technology.

Here are some questions for you then. You don’t have to post an answer to them—they are simply for you to think about.

1) Can the dimension of time be measured directly, or can it only be measured by measuring cyclical motion (such as orbits)? Can we ever know if time has structure, or what that structure is? How is the awareness of the passing of time linked to consciousness?

2) The prevailing theory of physics today is that the behavior of quantum particles is inherently uncertain and cannot be predetermined, no matter how much data you have. Is this logical or illogical? What "decides" the outcome of a quantum event?

3) Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems tells us there is no universal formal system from which all truth’s can be derived. More importantly, there is no formal system whose axioms can assert their own validity. So if the material Universe is one big logical system, with laws that are consistent and immutable, we can conclude there is no logical reason for that Universe to exist in the first place. So if the Universe is entirely logical and structured, why does it exist? Or, more simply put, can there really be a logical answer to the question "why is there anything at all?"

4) Look at something red. Can the sensation of the color red be reduced to a logical abstraction? If so, could a really, really smart colorblind person study that logical abstraction to understand what the sensation of red is like?

so I ask you: what is the conceptual problem?

Well, that was really the point of the original post in this topic. ;-)
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 12:41 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Sorry.. one more question.

5) From an ontological perspective (as opposed to an epistemic perspective), does free will really exist? If so, is it logical?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 11:40 AM by griffman
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

well thought out questionis... hopefully I'll be able to think out my answers well enough...

that AI cannot be conscious unless it also has outputs that feedback into that environment? Why would that be?

a coma patient has been proven to recive stimuli while in a coma, wether they hear or smell of feel something in the environment. but they are unable to interact. Normally I would think that a coma patient is considered "unconscious", meaning conscious at one time, but not right now. a computer AI taking in stimuli and not outputing information back to the environment would be very similar to the coma patient. interaction with the environment is an important part to consciousness, its the logical reaction of being part of the environment.

In your mind there is nothing that can be neither logical nor illogical--or simply, unstructured.
illogical and unstructured are fundamentally different. the difference being causality. illogical behavior of physical objects would be a lack causality, which is imposible. an unstructured SYSTEM still follows very specific rules governing the smaller components of that system. these component systems themselves are made of even small components following rules. an unstructured larger system is chaotic in nature, not illogical.

Illogical behavior in quantum physics is a lack understanding of the cause of the behavior. or a misinterpretation of the action itself.

Can the dimension of time be measured directly, or can it only be measured by measuring cyclical motion (such as orbits)? Can we ever know if time has structure, or what that structure is? How is the awareness of the passing of time linked to consciousness?

can you measure space directly? remember, a ruler to measure distance is an INDIRECT measurement of space. it relies on a referant. Time needs a referant as well, and both rely on a subjective interpretation of the data, the comparison of the observed against the referance.
can a non-conscious being make that comparison? the referant we use for time is an internal piece that, IMHO, is not very steady. but this interal reference creates our perception of the passing of time. it is completely subjective. So, no, there is no way to DIRECTLY measure Time, but we can't directly measure any other dimension either so it kinda makes it moot.

The prevailing theory of physics today is that the behavior of quantum particles is inherently uncertain and cannot be predetermined, no matter how much data you have. Is this logical or illogical? What "decides" the outcome of a quantum event?

it is uncertain because the act of observation changes the outcome from what can be predetermined based on the previous data. we are adding a chaotic variable to a structured action. our level of control of this variable determines how much variation in the quantum event occurs. as our technology gets finer in detail. we find more control and less uncertain action. the system is still logical.

I'm trying to avoid saying that quantum physics is wrong. there are errors in the interpretation of the data which causes much of the uncertainty and our lack of control of the observation. we are still missing important pieces of data of the causes of many quantum events. its a lack of understanding not an illogical imposibility. at least as I believe 8).

So if the Universe is entirely logical and structured, why does it exist?
back to my difference of logic and structure. the Universe is entirerly logical, it is not totally structured. there is alot of chaos in the universe. this chaos causes its own variation in the structure and shows the lack of order in higher systems. but it creates these variations in completely logical ways based on the rules and order of the underlying systems, almost infinitly divisable each with its own ratio of order and chaotic variation. complexity creates many posibilities.

the universe can't not exist. I can only say that why it does exist is simply because it had no choice. this is why I still believe in God. he chose. its the best answer to an irrelavant question.

Look at something red. Can the sensation of the color red be reduced to a logical abstraction? If so, could a really, really smart colorblind person study that logical abstraction to understand what the sensation of red is like?

I now call this the "blue is not a number" debate. as it has been a thorn in my side cause I can't articulate why it IS a number ever since I've seen his name on this board. drives me nuts.

I'll give it another go.....

Red is a wavelength of light between x and y frequencies. observation of this wavelength triggers a stimulus reaction in the sense which matches a pattern stored in our memory from the last time we observed this stimuli. this abstract pattern is identified as red. THIS PATTERN IS DIFFERENT FOR EACH BEING. if you look at the pattern only, there is little way to determine the initial stimulant. its like cryptography in that sense.

If you had an understanding of the structure that created the pattern ( a really, really smart person would ) then you can hash out and backtrack to the point that it was created by our initial wavelength stimulant. a colorblind person, lacking the structure to recive the stimulant and generate the pattern, would have no way of knowing what their version of the pattern would look like. no one elses pattern would be any help to them.... UNLESS, they were given a device(structure, receptor) to take in the wavelength stimulant that generates the predefined pattern of the other person and presents it to the correct interpreters in the brain. then that pattern would be remembered as red. none of the abstract parterning and internal structures of the brain changes the fact that red is a light wavelength between x and y frequencies. that fact is true if your colorblind or not.

From an ontological perspective (as opposed to an epistemic perspective), does free will really exist? If so, is it logical?

the topic of free will was dicussed at length elsewhere. a good read on the topic as well. I will say that free will is not what we think it is. you have to keep in persepective multiple layers of causality to understand it. when we are given a choice, every causal previous event in our environment, chemical reaction in our brain, feelings and memories of related events in relation to the choice, all push our choice toward one descision or another. the outcome is a logical sum of all these variables calculating at the moment of choosing.

people seem to feel this removes their control of the matter. that they are not truly free. If you have to look at it that way then no, there is no free will. But I believe that the number of variables involved is so vast that it doesn't matter that we are not in control. our choices are completely logical based on the variables involved, no matter how illogical the outcome appears in reality. its highly complex order, in no way is it simple and rigid with illogical solutions. illogical solutions are simply the presense of errors in the sumation generated by previously misdefined variables.

wrt this question:

Are you saying that anything that can manipulate data and act accordingly to maintain their survival is conscious? Are the bots I shoot at in the game Quake conscious under that definition?
by this definition of consciousnes...... yes, the bots in Quake are conscious. so be more polite and say your sorry when you liquify their head 8P.......

there is no problem believing them to be conscious. as long as you say "at some LEVEL".... when presented wiith a spectrum such as this we go back to the problem with measuring time and space. we need a referant. for consciousness, the only referant that anyone can _truely_ accept is in comparison to their own internal level. and we have no way of telling where we fit on the spectrum, so comparison to anything else is imposible.

unless you accept a referant other than your own consciousness as a standard. then you can use that a a measure. lets use a dog for this right now. accept that a dog is a conscious being. suddenly we can determine that we are higher on the spectrum of consciousness than a dog. the bot in quake appears to be lower on the list than the dog, giving us a better idea of its relation to us. but as we improve the programming of the bot... it is slowly approaching the level of the dog while also aproaching the level of human, though the distance is still undeterminable.

just like the EM spectrum. we should be able to map out the consiousness spectrum based on successive discovery of the quantitative value of each level consciousness by comparison. comparing xrays to radio to define gamma rays (just an example). developing AI is maping this out as we progress up the consciousness ladder.

Are you suggesting that it is possible to be conscious and not experience qualia? My drug use has been limited, but I find this hard to believe. It seems you are making the assertion that the senses are required for qualia, but then how do you explain the qualia that is part of a dream state?

experiencing qualia is an event. the definition of that qualia was set the last time that event occured. counsciousness is a state of being. you can experience LESS qualia (under chemical influences this is obvious) or more (depending on your drug of choice 8P). the amount of qualia you experience determines your conscious state. a dream state is a lower level of consciousness that is recieving qualia from fewer senses, mostly internal systems. but they are still senses generating qualia and creating the conscious state.

I have rambled on long enough... I hope there are some revalations in there, I'm pretty happy with the answers.

cheers
griffman

[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 1:09 PM by 7and7is
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

God? Could you give us any more information?
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 3:52 PM by blue_is_not_a_number
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Griffman,

I now call this the "blue is not a number" debate. as it has been a thorn in my side cause I can't articulate why it IS a number ever since I've seen his name on this board. drives me nuts.

I'll give it another go.....

I am listening. ;-)

I agree with what you say about patterns further on, however, of course, you are talking about "knowing the color", not about "seeing the color".

By the way, currently I am thinking about what it means to say that consciousness is irreducible, and what the implications are. It seems to me that from "irreducibility" alone it would follow that it would have to be a "source of causation", a cause which is not (only) an effect (whatever this means). However I want to gain further clarity about this before I bring it into the discussion (although I have already talked about somewhat similar things), and some of you will perhaps find such a thought illogical in the first place. Plus I need to figure out a good way to "articulate" it as well, it seems we have a common challenge here.

So you might see me here in a few weeks or so.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 4:46 PM by subtillioN
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

It seems to me that from "irreducibility" alone it would follow that it would have to be a "source of causation", a cause which is not (only) an effect (whatever this means).

I think this follows directly from the concept of causation that ALL effects are also causes in their own right. Some effects have "greater" causes and others simply ripple into time and dissipate into other cause/effects. Cause and effect are two different directions on the same imaginary "time-line".

Something to keep in mind or discard as you wish, Blue.
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/04/2003 5:51 PM by griffman
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

I am listening. ;-)
I figured that would get your attention 8).....

I agree with what you say about patterns further on, however, of course, you are talking about "knowing the color", not about "seeing the color".

"seeing" is an action of reciving a stimulus through the eye on the receptors located on the cornea. from there begins what I believe would be the conscious experience of "seeing".... the line between the stimulus and the structure that processes the stimulus into a pattern.

By the way, currently I am thinking about what it means to say that consciousness is irreducible, and what the implications are. It seems to me that from "irreducibility" alone it would follow that it would have to be a "source of causation", a cause which is not (only) an effect (whatever this means).

interesting.... I'm going to have to agree with what Sub said and wait for your further posts.... finding a "source of causation" sounds to me like trying to find the first cause that all effects stem from... good luck on that. I look forward to hearing from you later.

Griffman
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/06/2003 1:58 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Griffman,

a computer AI taking in stimuli and not outputing information back to the environment would be very similar to the coma patient.

You’re using a circular argument. A coma patient can’t interact with his environment because he is unconscious… and he is not conscious because he can’t interact with his environment. I don’t buy the second part.

It may not matter in any case. In the original post, there was no implied limit to the extent the AI’s environment was simulated. No matter how vast the array of inputs and outputs to the AI, it is still abstracting the causality in the human brain to computational rules, which we may regard as simply data.

This takes us to your next assertion, that really, everything in the Universe is just abstract data.

an unstructured larger system is chaotic in nature, not illogical.

We must have a misunderstanding. When I say unstructured, I do not mean unorganized—I mean irreducible. Chaotic systems are still reducible, and therefore logical and structured.

it is uncertain because the act of observation changes the outcome from what can be predetermined based on the previous data. we are adding a chaotic variable to a structured action. our level of control of this variable determines how much variation in the quantum event occurs. as our technology gets finer in detail. we find more control and less uncertain action. the system is still logical.

I would point out two objections held by the mainstream view of quantum mechanics. First off, the uncertainty principle is not due to insufficient means of measurement, nor insufficient technology. Secondly, there are no “hidden variables” that simply cannot be accounted for.

You are welcome to disagree with the mainstream opinion. I would ask though if you are compromising what is considered to be the best empirical evidence for an ideology that you desire to be true.

the universe can't not exist. I can only say that why it does exist is simply because it had no choice. this is why I still believe in God. he chose.

I am reluctant to wander too far into theology, but I have one point to make. If God created the Universe, including spacetime, then that would imply God is outside of time. Therefore, I see no distinction between you stating that God created the Universe billions of years ago, and you stating that God participates in its creation each and every moment.

I have no doubt that your response will be that God’s level of participation is limited to setting the ground rules (the laws of physics), and letting them cause everything. However, if you open up to the possibility that quantum events are truly non-deterministic, then there is a significant paradigm shift.

a colorblind person, lacking the structure to recive the stimulant and generate the pattern, would have no way of knowing what their version of the pattern would look like

I do not believe this is compatible with your belief that the process of the brain sensing the color red is also a logical abstraction.

Humans invented logic and are very good at conceptualizing it. If the event of the brain processing the color red is just a logical abstraction, then in principle, a colorblind person can conceptualize it if he were intelligent enough.

Of course, I will concede that there is no human intelligent enough to deal with that level of complexity. So, I will change the scenario a bit. Suppose that there is an alien intelligence so great, that it dwarves human intelligence. Suppose this alien feels no emotions. Its mind is just not wired for them. By analyzing the human mind, could this alien understand what it is like to experience pain and joy, simply by understanding the logical abstractions associated with these sensations?

It makes sense that he could understand any biophysical changes in the body related to the emotions, as well as the functional aspects of the emotions, but your assertion would mean he could truly know what the emotions feel like. Yet, he is not emotional.

How would he react to analyzing the extreme degrees of pain the human mind can receive? By nature, it is not possible for him to have any internal emotional reaction to such analysis.

What is the conceptual contradiction with this allegory?

a dream state is a lower level of consciousness that is recieving qualia from fewer senses, mostly internal systems. but they are still senses generating qualia and creating the conscious state.

If any “internal system” can be categorized as a sense, then I would agree that consciousness depends on the senses. Kind of makes the statement meaningless though.

[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/08/2003 12:29 PM by griffman
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Sorry, another oversized post.........

A coma patient can’t interact with his environment because he is unconscious… and he is not conscious because he can’t interact with his environment. I don’t buy the second part.

I'm using a common definition of conscious. It is obvious that a coma patient cannot interact with his environment. it is also common to call him "unconscious". the patient being "conscious at one time" is irrelavent to the distinction. My point is simply that there is no difference in the use of the word "conscious" in this scenerio than when we refer to a computer being "conscious" (caveat- a computer capable of being conscious on a human level, not ones we are using today).

We must have a misunderstanding. When I say unstructured, I do not mean unorganized—I mean irreducible. Chaotic systems are still reducible, and therefore logical and structured.

unstructured and irreducaible are VASTlY different terms. Semantics gets us in alot of trouble around here. but to take a step back.....

In your mind there is nothing that can be neither logical nor illogical--or simply, unstructured.
hang on a sec.... what do you think logic is?.....

logic - a causal chain of irreducible functions. the variable outcome of the effect of each function mark a boundry between what is stated as a logical and illogical. if an outcome of a function is outside its difined variable. it is either misdefined or further reducible.

agree or disagree?

I'm going to continue assuming agreement....

With this definition, all irreducible functions are logical. which means they follow a causal chain, making them inherrently determanistic. non-determanistic outcomes (quantum events for example) therefore are either further reducable (our measurements are not fine enough) or misdefined (they're wrong).

the point of the chaotic systems is that it has a broad variable range. take a chaotic system built out of more chaotic systems, and continue this chain to the desired level of the universe.... and impossible quickly becomes the minority.

the entire point is that you must not underestimate the complexity of universe, it is magnitudes more complex than humans have thus far discovered, let alone what you can imagine. A logical, deterministic universe is by no means limiting.

First off, the uncertainty principle is not due to insufficient means of measurement, nor insufficient technology.
yes but the inferences(excuses) QM makes based on the uncertainty principle show an improper way to measure the effects of the system you wish to measure (you can't detect a quantum with a photon because you change the properties of the quantum, the specifics haved expanded past this but the method/reasoning is the same). there are other ways to measure these particles which is just a show of insufficient technology.

Secondly, there are no “hidden variables” that simply cannot be accounted for.

there are new variables found everyday. how can you say there are not more that are not accounted for yet? the important point is... yet. this is what drives the accelarating rate of change paradigm without fail.

I would ask though if you are compromising what is considered to be the best empirical evidence for an ideology that you desire to be true.
QM is no more an ideology than any other scientific theory, and the desire for truth is felt in both camps. Just because there are more Chistians than Pagans doesn't mean the Chistians got it right. As for the empirical evidence, Subtillion has debated its validity enough here to take me out of the "QM as true" camp that you obviously reside in. do not trust those reluctant to change their point of view, they are looking at a 3d sculpture on Television.

I am reluctant to wander too far into theology, but I have one point to make. If God created the Universe, including spacetime, then that would imply God is outside of time.

I was reluctant to wander that far.... My view of God is that he and the universe are one and the same. he as a conscious entity computes every irreducible, logical aspect of the universe, based on the ground rules orignially set. His involvement with us would be analogus to us consciously manipulating a cell in our body. He currently isn't intellegent enough in this area of space/time to accomplish this task. just as we are with cell manipulation, we are progressing toward this posibility. (theory single world entity/mind and beyond. its in the cards)

Humans invented logic and are very good at conceptualizing it.
here is why I asked what your definition of logic was. Based on mine, saying a human invented logic is absurd. We being intellegent and consious, allows us to conceptualize logic as a FACT. laws of nature are not invented, they are discovered.

Suppose that there is an alien intelligence so great, that it dwarves human intelligence. Suppose this alien feels no emotions. Its mind is just not wired for them. By analyzing the human mind, could this alien understand what it is like to experience pain and joy, simply by understanding the logical abstractions associated with these sensations?

It makes sense that he could understand any biophysical changes in the body related to the emotions, as well as the functional aspects of the emotions, but your assertion would mean he could truly know what the emotions feel like. Yet, he is not emotional.

By my assertion, yes he could. he would be able to know what it is like. If he "wired" that logical abstraction into his own conscious substrate, he would then "feel" it too when it was activated by proper stimuli. knowing a feeling and feeling a feeling are not one in the same. but feeling a feeling is nothing misterious and unknowable with options other than the observable components involved.

How would he react to analyzing the extreme degrees of pain the human mind can receive? By nature, it is not possible for him to have any internal emotional reaction to such analysis.

that solely depends on the opinion the alien has of the human feeling the sensation. to stick with our unemotional, logical alien... If the alien found the human to be an effecient device toward some purpose, and the sensation of pain lowered its effeciency, then he would wish to stop the sensation. if he thought it increased the efficiency of the device, he would encourage the sensation (posible though proven ineffective past a certain threshold of the human device). If the human was not found to be an effecient device for any purpose, he would be indifferent and feel no empathy for the humans sufforing.

wrt empathy... in my mind it would be the act of knowing what the abstract logic structure defined and integrating it into the substrate, and then stimulating it. This has been reciently show to actually occur. those watching someone feeling pain show the same brain activity as those actually experiencing it. Which makes us intellegent enough to deal with that level of complexity. we are just not conscious of the calculations involved. that happens alot too. 8).

[now how does morality play into that? well it works out that if you witness a sensation of another, and you have a negative opinion of that sensation. morality is simply the desire to not have that sensation happen to others, at all. masochistic(sp?) behavior fits with this idea logically. "others" does not require all humans to fit in that definition, explaining slavery logically]

>>It seems you are making the assertion that the senses are required for qualia, but then how do you explain the qualia that is part of a dream state?

>a dream state is a lower level of consciousness that is recieving qualia from fewer senses, mostly internal systems. but they are still senses generating qualia and creating the conscious state.

If any “internal system” can be categorized as a sense, then I would agree that consciousness depends on the senses. Kind of makes the statement meaningless though.
the distinction of the qualia that is part of the dream state was the statement I was debating. I believe that it was successfully rendered meaningless.

and finnally...

The human mind may be able to compute things (and could therefore be referred to as a computer), but that does not mean the human mind is entirely computational.

well if we've gone this far, based on the concepts layed out above.... what part of the human mind is non-computational? especially if QM is wrong and the entire universe is logical, deterministic functions? whos ideology makes sense and who is wandering too deep into theology?

griffman

[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/10/2003 12:11 AM by leodegan
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Griffman, Marcel,

Sorry but I am going to have to postpone my replies for a bit. Work has really flared up the past few days, but I look forward to continuing our discussion...

Leodegan
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/08/2003 7:39 AM by billmerit
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

>I now call this the "blue is not a number" debate. as it has been a thorn in my side cause I can't articulate why it IS a number ever since I've seen his name on this board. drives me nuts. <

Well, blue is a range of frequencies. Take the mid point, call that 'blue'. There you go.

"You can prove anything with math." subtillioN

[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/08/2003 10:20 AM by griffman
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Well, blue is a range of frequencies. Take the mid point, call that 'blue'. There you go.

thats my argument... see Blue's postings to see how hard it is to prove it without rebuttal.

griffman
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/08/2003 11:17 AM by billmerit
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

I think this is a matter of attitude. Blue should have to prove he is not a number.

Question for Blue: 'What's the funniest color?'
[Reply] [Parent]

Re: Artificial Consciousness?
posted on 12/08/2003 2:05 PM by grantcc
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]

Blue is not necessarily a number but it can be if it is used as a symbol -- i.e. red means stop, green means go, yellow means wait, and blue means whatever you use it to mean. If you use it to stand for "two," for example, then it obviously is a number. If you don't use it for anything, then it's nothing from a symbolic point of view.
[Reply] [Parent]