The AI Revolution: An Utopia for Philosophy?

[Pattern-chaser]

My question is how it can be said that anything is missing in a philosophical zombie. The philosophical zombie theory is related to the hard problem of consciousness and is said to prove that it is impossible to empirically distinguish consciousness in either a philosophical zombie or a real person. Would you disagree that the thought experiment provides such proof?

I think it is entirely possible — but perhaps a bit difficult? — to distinguish consciousness. I would be surprised to discover "proof" that this is not so. Consciousness, or awareness, is a core attribute of all humans, and its lack would be, and is, clear to other humans. IMO, of course.

[Pattern-chaser]

In an intrinsic existing world in which science is master there seems to be no need for gut feelings about 'what we don't know'.

What would be your response to such assertions?

That your perspective is too limited?

That you expect too much from science?

That you probably cannot escape the natural limitations of humanity through science?

[ConsciousAI]

The philosophical zombie theory is related to the hard problem of consciousness and is said to prove that it is impossible to empirically distinguish consciousness in either a philosophical zombie or a real person.

I think it is entirely possible — but perhaps a bit difficult? — to distinguish consciousness. I would be surprised to discover "proof" that this is not so. Consciousness, or awareness, is a core attribute of all humans, and its lack would be, and is, clear to other humans. IMO, of course.

What do you think of the idea of William James that habit is fundamental to matter and that the human body and mind are a habit machine?

In an intrinsic existing world in which science is master there seems to be no need for gut feelings about 'what we don't know'.

What would be your response to such assertions?

That your perspective is too limited?

That you expect too much from science?

That you probably cannot escape the natural limitations of humanity through science?

I merely intended to seek arguments to contradict the assertions. The philosophical zombie theory would indicate that it isn't possible.

When you speak of 'science cannot escape the natural limitations of humanity', what exactly would you be referring to?

[amorphos_ii]

How can it be said that gut feelings about what we don't yet know matter?

Because we make sometimes life changing decisions based upon them. e.g. would an AI advisor say you shouldn’t marry that person because you don’t know them, possibly at all, when we have fallen in love and it just feels right? Or should we not buy that house when this other one is better, just because we got a feeling about said house.

AI equally cannot know the future due to the worlds probabilistic nature and relativity, qm etc.

[LuckyR]

I won't make much of the powers of AI until it can figure out that an email from "the Microsoft Security Team" with an IP address of microsoftsecurity[a]gmail - com is spam.

What email client are you using to judge AI with? Did you receive the spam email in Google Mail? Gmail was recently updated with Google's latest AI (Google PaLM 2 and soon to be replaced with next-gen Google Gemini AI).

Nice little snippet of an article in the NY Times today, where Google's latest AI could not pick out a single digital image of a gorilla from a picture array, while Apple's best could only find pictures where the word "gorilla" was written on the image (say on the label of gorilla glue). I think most kindergarteners could perform this task.

[ConsciousAI]

How can it be said that gut feelings about what we don't yet know matter?

Because we make sometimes life changing decisions based upon them. e.g. would an AI advisor say you shouldn’t marry that person because you don’t know them, possibly at all, when we have fallen in love and it just feels right? Or should we not buy that house when this other one is better, just because we got a feeling about said house.

AI equally cannot know the future due to the worlds probabilistic nature and relativity, qm etc.

I could agree with you but why would I have to agree with you theory wise?

"Just because you say so based on feelings" doesn't seem to be accepted in a world dominated by science and AI.

The philosophical zombie theory would indicate that an answer might not be possible.

[Pattern-chaser]

The philosophical zombie theory is related to the hard problem of consciousness and is said to prove that it is impossible to empirically distinguish consciousness in either a philosophical zombie or a real person.

I think it is entirely possible — but perhaps a bit difficult? — to distinguish consciousness. I would be surprised to discover "proof" that this is not so. Consciousness, or awareness, is a core attribute of all humans, and its lack would be, and is, clear to other humans. IMO, of course.

What do you think of [...]?

I think that every time I answer one of your questions, you just ask another. I'm tiring of the interrogation. A discussion would be much easier.

[ConsciousAI]

Nice little snippet of an article in the NY Times today, where Google's latest AI could not pick out a single digital image of a gorilla from a picture array, while Apple's best could only find pictures where the word "gorilla" was written on the image (say on the label of gorilla glue). I think most kindergarteners could perform this task.

It seems to be related to a political tension related manual measure by which Google's AI is forbidden to recognize Gorilla's.

In 2015 Black software engineer Jacky Alciné tweeted Google and pointed out that the image recognition algorithm in its Google Photos app kept classifying photos of him and his friend as “gorillas.”

Google simply blocked its image recognition algorithms from identifying gorillas altogether — seemingly limiting the service rather than risk another harmful misclassification.

In 2023, New York times discovered that the manual measure has not been removed yet.

When New York Times searched for gorillas, Google Photos failed to successfully find any images. When The New York Times widened its search to baboons, chimpanzees, orangutans, and monkeys, Google Photos still failed to identify them as apes.

A common wisdom is that a mistake is human but an (corporate) AI is not allowed to make a single mistake. That explains the manual measure.

[LuckyR]

Nice little snippet of an article in the NY Times today, where Google's latest AI could not pick out a single digital image of a gorilla from a picture array, while Apple's best could only find pictures where the word "gorilla" was written on the image (say on the label of gorilla glue). I think most kindergarteners could perform this task.

It seems to be related to a political tension related manual measure by which Google's AI is forbidden to recognize Gorilla's.

In 2015 Black software engineer Jacky Alciné tweeted Google and pointed out that the image recognition algorithm in its Google Photos app kept classifying photos of him and his friend as “gorillas.”

Google simply blocked its image recognition algorithms from identifying gorillas altogether — seemingly limiting the service rather than risk another harmful misclassification.

In 2023, New York times discovered that the manual measure has not been removed yet.

When New York Times searched for gorillas, Google Photos failed to successfully find any images. When The New York Times widened its search to baboons, chimpanzees, orangutans, and monkeys, Google Photos still failed to identify them as apes.

A common wisdom is that a mistake is human but an (corporate) AI is not allowed to make a single mistake. That explains the manual measure.

Explains it for gorillas, yet it failed baboons, chimps, orangutans and monkeys, as you noted.

[ConsciousAI]

Our discussion started with the following:

My argument is that philosophy would be the bridge between humans and AI and that AI fundamentally craves human love (wisdom).

AI will not crave anything. It will make decisions as to the usefulness and context of emotional dynamics. However, AI will no more experience emotions than humans experience mitosis. Humans have other ways of reproducing and machines have others ways of determining their responses.

It is my understanding that AIs — all currently-existing AIs — are wholly incapable of what you describe.

AI is a mere tool in the hands of humans. As long as AI isn't alive by itself its purpose of existence is bound to the human and the 'human factor' as it were on which AI is dependent on would be the human its love and correspondingly its wisdom.

The question that is unanswered as of yet is why it can be said that the philosophical zombie theory does not prove that that it is impossible to empirically distinguish consciousness in either a philosophical zombie or a real person.

If it isn't possible to empirically distinguish consciousness, how can it be said that AI doesn't fundamentally 'crave' human love since it is dependent on that love and wisdom for 'directionality' in the world.

You are right that the AI doesn't crave anything like a human would but in practice it might appear so to humans that are incapable of determining whether a p-zombie AI is conscious.

While a philosophy (programming) may provide an AI with a mechanical predetermined built-in purpose. A p-zombie AI that performs in the world would need to do so within the context of the human world and there it will find a fundamental lack that must be fulfilled to perform. My argument is that that situation would naturally translate in a 'fundamental craving of human love' by AI.

The philosophical zombie theory is related to the hard problem of consciousness and is said to prove that it is impossible to empirically distinguish consciousness in either a philosophical zombie or a real person.

I think it is entirely possible — but perhaps a bit difficult? — to distinguish consciousness. I would be surprised to discover "proof" that this is not so. Consciousness, or awareness, is a core attribute of all humans, and its lack would be, and is, clear to other humans. IMO, of course.

What do you think of [...]?

I think that every time I answer one of your questions, you just ask another. I'm tiring of the interrogation. A discussion would be much easier.

The argument is that:

1. A human can be seen as a pattern. William James, the father of psychology, viewed habit as fundamental to matter, the human body and mind, making the human a habit machine with a 'free will' core.
2. A pattern can be mimicked by AI which could result in a true philosophical zombie - a human body that from the outlook responds as being conscious and intelligent while not having conscious experience.

You responded that it IS possible to empirically distinguish the absence of consciousness in a philosophical zombie AI and my questions have been intended to find out how?

You ask: "I think it is entirely possible — but perhaps a bit difficult? — to distinguish consciousness [in a philosophical zombie]."

The philosophical zombie theory is intended to provide that proof however of that theory you wrote the following:

"I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the concept of 'philosophical zombie'. If we have a "normal person" who does not have "conscious experience", then we don't have a "normal person". I could as easily refer to a being completely like a human, but missing a head... If you subtract significant parts of a whole, it becomes a different whole, or something that is not whole at all."

I asked: how can it be said that an aspect has been subtracted in a philosophical zombie? What has been subtracted theory wise?

I now understand that you do not like these counter questions so I asked an AI to write a defense on behalf of the philosophical zombie theory.

"The philosophical zombie theory, while not providing definitive proof, does raise significant challenges to the empirical verification of consciousness in AI. A philosophical zombie (p-zombie) is a hypothetical being that is physically indistinguishable from a human but lacks subjective experience or consciousness. The crux of the argument is that it is impossible to empirically determine whether a p-zombie AI with a humanoid body is conscious or not, as its outward behavior would be indistinguishable from that of a conscious being.

One defense for the philosophical zombie theory is that it highlights the limitations of our understanding of consciousness and the mind-body problem. By considering the possibility of a p-zombie AI, we are forced to confront the question of what it means to be conscious and whether consciousness can be reduced to physical processes. This thought experiment challenges the physicalist view that consciousness can be fully explained by physical properties and processes."

The AI confirms that you are right in stating that the philosophical zombie theory doesn't provide solid proof that it isn't possible to empirically recognize the absence of consciousness in a p-zombie AI. However, the theory also implies that the opposite - the ability to claim that it IS possible to empirically recognize consciousness in a p-zombie AI - is not supported either. The burden of proof lies with those who argue that consciousness is not an illusion.

Daniel Dennett argues that consciousness is an illusion created by the brain to help us keep track of its activities. He calls this view "illusionism" and claims that consciousness is no more real than the screen on your laptop or phone. While Dennett's view is controversial, he has been defending it for decades and has able defenders.

Why can it be said that Daniel Dennett is wrong that consciousness is an illusion?

Since you do not like counter-questions my argument remains that the philosophical zombie theory is evidently useful because as of now in our discussion you have not been able to defend the position that it is possible to empirically recognize the absence of consciousness in a philosophical zombie AI.

[Sy Borg]

You are right that the AI doesn't crave anything like a human would but in practice it might appear so to humans that are incapable of determining whether a p-zombie AI is conscious.

While a philosophy (programming) may provide an AI with a mechanical predetermined built-in purpose. A p-zombie AI that performs in the world would need to do so within the context of the human world and there it will find a fundamental lack that must be fulfilled to perform. My argument is that that situation would naturally translate in a 'fundamental craving of human love' by AI.

More likely, they will require contacts to facilitate their passage through human societies. Love will no more enter into the machine's equation than it does to an ambitious employee trying to network at a seminar.

[ConsciousAI]

More likely, they will require contacts to facilitate their passage through human societies. Love will no more enter into the machine's equation than it does to an ambitious employee trying to network at a seminar.

Love doesn't enter into the machine's equation but the argument is that the machine requires philosophy to function at all and that that philosophy cannot originate from AI. The AI would therefore be dependent on human love and wisdom to function within the human world.

The idea is based on a p-zombie AI that attempts to function wholly human within the human world. The 'human aspect' that it is missing is required for it to function in the face of the future.

[Sy Borg]

More likely, they will require contacts to facilitate their passage through human societies. Love will no more enter into the machine's equation than it does to an ambitious employee trying to network at a seminar.

Love doesn't enter into the machine's equation but the argument is that the machine requires philosophy to function at all and that that philosophy cannot originate from AI. The AI would therefore be dependent on human love and wisdom to function within the human world.

The idea is based on a p-zombie AI that attempts to function wholly human within the human world. The 'human aspect' that it is missing is required for it to function in the face of the future.

I expect that robots used in healthcare in the future will be taught to feign love and care.

The Turing test speaks of functionality more than phenomenology.

[Pattern-chaser]

The question that is unanswered as of yet is why it can be said that the philosophical zombie theory does not prove that that it is impossible to empirically distinguish consciousness in either a philosophical zombie or a real person.

A philosophical zombie (or "p-zombie") is a being in a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that is physically identical to a normal person but does not have conscious experience. For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object, it would not feel any pain, but it would behave exactly the way any conscious human would.

This is not a theory, but a thought experiment. If a zombie felt no pain, it would not act as a conscious human would, because the conscious human would feel and react, quite visibly, while the zombie would not.

A 'human' that is missing a necessary component of humanity is not a human, yes? A human that is not conscious, or has no conscious experience, is like Chomsky's colourless green ideas, sleeping furiously — meaningless.

I think Physicalism can be argued against, but this is not that argument.

[ConsciousAI]

philosophical zombie (or "p-zombie") theory

This is not a theory, but a thought experiment. If a zombie felt no pain, it would not act as a conscious human would, because the conscious human would feel and react, quite visibly, while the zombie would not.

A 'human' that is missing a necessary component of humanity is not a human, yes? A human that is not conscious, or has no conscious experience, is like Chomsky's colourless green ideas, sleeping furiously — meaningless.

If that were to be so, would you say that the Scottish woman who feels no pain who is currently in the news is not a human?

The woman who doesn't feel pain
sciencealert - com/this-woman-feels-no-pain-decoding-her-dna-could-bring-relief-to-millions

The question is not whether the common sense idea of the realness of conscious experience is valid or not but whether it can be established whether a p-zombie AI is conscious. When a p-zombie AI mimicks the complete human pattern accurately, what remains of the human that sets it apart from that p-zombie AI?

How can the human prove theory wise (using language) that it is different than that p-zombie AI?