Can a man-made computer become conscious?

[Belindi]

Yet, at this stage, I consider those insects much more sentient than any machine, including the chatbot AI ludicrously granted various undeserved honorifics:

In October 2017, Sophia was given Saudi Arabian citizenship, and became the first robot to receive citizenship of any country. In November 2017, Sophia was named the United Nations Development Programme's first Innovation Champion, and is the first non-human to be given a United Nations title.

I would question that the bot is non-human. I would argue that it's just an extension of its maker's consciousness.

I'm happy to follow your info and evaluation as to Sophia .


Sy Borg wrote

Consider the reverence and/or love we have for the non-living - the Moon, sacred objects, priceless artefacts, gemstones, precious metals, ancient ruins, buildings protected by heritage laws, large rocks (Uluru is only the biggest and most revered, but there are others), paintings, sculptures, musical instruments, mobile phones, clothes, family keepsakes, old photos.

We humans have perhaps the closest relationship with geology of any creature that is not a lithotroph. Our intersection between biology and geology has taken us this far, with geology/the non-living gaining ever more influence and dominance over the living.

I try to keep my feelings for inanimate things in what I conceive to be their proper place as 'different' from animate. I try to cling to reason although I struggle as inanimate things seem to contain my identity and the identities of others. When I drove out the car dealership in a newer car I actually said goodbye to my faithful little old Fiat . I could see her where they placed unwanted cars.

I do however appreciate "earth to earth dust to dust", probably because it's a consolation. Consolation may be why Sartre's dichotomy between being for itself(and others) on one hand, and on the other hand being in itself appeals to me. I imagine Sartre's Cartesian trend can be avoided if I tell myself beings in themselves are nothing but their histories that we tell about them, whereas beings for themselves(and others) are Daseins of experiences.

In the view of lithotrophs, a view unknown to me until a few minutes ago you opened my eyes, I have to conclude there is no dichotomy such as I imagined, and instead it's part of panpsychics' continuum. Nevertheless, would you agree that experience is the concept that we should link to value? We very much value lithotrophs that can eat plastic especially from the ocean water. However do you value lithotrophs not for themselves but for what they do for the forms that intend so very much more, such as plants and animals?

The trend seems likely to continue, which I find extraordinary. We Earthlings started out as rocks, loose chemicals and water. We then complexified and became what we call "biology" over billions of years, and now we are reverting back to geology again. However, this time the "geology" (ie. silicon etc) will be intelligent and possibly even sentient in its own way. It's as though life was just a phase in a general process of complexification.

Now that you have said "lithotrophs" and I have Googled lithotrophs I must agree with you. Do you think your overview of the trend as you describe is consistent with what you wrote about the Sophia system? Anyway, I do.

Now, if I am sure I want to persist with the idealism theory of being I'll have to persist also to claim that experience, in the absence of multitudinous Daseins, is absolute. However, naturally, whether or not that implies 'life after death' I have no idea.

[SteveKlinko]

"
MIT Researcher: Don’t Ignore the Possibility That AI Is Becoming Conscious

"Seeing so many prominent [machine learning] folks ridiculing this idea is disappointing."

Amid a maelstrom set off by a prominent AI researcher saying that some AI may already be achieving limited consciousness, one MIT AI researcher is saying the concept might not be so far-fetched.

Our story starts with Ilya Sutskever, head scientist at the Elon Musk cofounded research group OpenAI. On February 9, Sutskever tweeted that “it may be that today’s large neural networks are slightly conscious.”

In response, many others in the AI research space decried the OpenAI scientist’s claim, suggesting that it was harming machine learning’s reputation and amounted to little more than a “sales pitch” for OpenAI’s work.

That backlash has now generated its own clapback from MIT computer scientist Tamay Besiroglu, who’s now bucking the trend by coming to Sutskever’s defense.

“Seeing so many prominent [machine learning] folks ridiculing this idea is disappointing,” Besiroglu tweeted. “It makes me less hopeful in the field’s ability to seriously take on some of the profound, weird and important questions that they’ll undoubtedly be faced with over the next few decades.”

“I don’t actually think we can draw a clear line between models that are ‘not conscious’ vs ‘maybe slightly conscious,'” he said in a followup message. “I’m also not sure any of these models are conscious.”

“That said, I do think the question could be a meaningful one that shouldn’t just be neglected,” he added.

https://futurism.com/mit-researcher-conscious-ai


Once again:

"I am a computer - I am Man made - And I am conscious"

- UniversalAlien

If any of these people knew what Consciousness was then there might be validity to the Speculation that Neural Nets are slightly Conscious. But nobody knows what they are talking about when they talk about Consciousness. Nobody knows what Consciousness is, so how can anybody say it is in some inanimate object. But especially since there is no such thing as a generalized Consciousness Phenomenon, they are saying that Neural Nets have a Phenomenon that doesn't even exist. There are only Conscious Experiences. What is Consciousness if there are no Conscious Experiences? So therefore, the proponents of Neural Net Consciousness are claiming that their Neural Nets have Feelings. This is Incoherent thinking at its finest. I agree with the comment that it is all about Hyping AI and Neural Nets to sell products and make money.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you have a simple, commonsense description of Daesin, I'm keen. As far as I can tell it's the-thing-in-itself-within-its environment, which I guess is the "shoreline" between self and non-self ...?

...bearing in mind that this "shoreline" is an illusion, much as 'self' is an illusion. It might be convenient - and there's nothing wrong with convenience! - but it's a fantasy. The universe is one whole; all of its internal heterogeneity is just that, and not 'separate' 'parts' that may - meaningfully and correctly - be considered in isolation from one another. The universe contains no internal boundaries, and thus there can be no shoreline.

To some extent, what I am talking about here is binary thinking. We seem compelled to break things down, in a reductionist divide-and-conquer way, and that is not always wise, I suggest...

We can pretend there is a shoreline, for it simplifies our thinking considerably, and we need all the help we can get. But the trap there is that we start to believe that our fantasy of boundaries reflects actual reality, and that should be enough to make us uneasy, as philosophers, don't you think?

And all this, while it might appear to be a distraction from the subject, informs our concept of consciousness. For if we are not distinct or isolated 'things', then our consciousness necessarily exists within this mental 'framework.'

[Sy Borg]

I do however appreciate "earth to earth dust to dust", probably because it's a consolation. Consolation may be why Sartre's dichotomy between being for itself(and others) on one hand, and on the other hand being in itself appeals to me. I imagine Sartre's Cartesian trend can be avoided if I tell myself beings in themselves are nothing but their histories that we tell about them, whereas beings for themselves(and others) are Daseins of experiences.

We can consider the richness of being sin themselves because they are not just the product of our stories, but many stories that we cannot access. There is a pebble on the edge of the driveway. Tiny organisms shelter under it, away from the Sun's radiation and larger organisms. Some may be born, live their lives, reproduce and die under that pebble, perhaps generations. Others might just use it for a brief respite, or they may scan the crevices for food. And the pebble remains, a tiny object, whose ability to defy entropy is exploited by those who are more fragile.

Now that you have said "lithotrophs" and I have Googled lithotrophs I must agree with you. Do you think your overview of the trend as you describe is consistent with what you wrote about the Sophia system? Anyway, I do.

Now, if I am sure I want to persist with the idealism theory of being I'll have to persist also to claim that experience, in the absence of multitudinous Daseins, is absolute. However, naturally, whether or not that implies 'life after death' I have no idea.

I think Sophia is an early model of AI, like the abacus was an early model of computer. I suspect that the human/AI interface is where the action will be - for a while, anyway. In time, researchers will find out much human tissue is the minimum needed for a cyborg to retain sentience.

[UniversalAlien]

"
MIT Researcher: Don’t Ignore the Possibility That AI Is Becoming Conscious

"Seeing so many prominent [machine learning] folks ridiculing this idea is disappointing."

Amid a maelstrom set off by a prominent AI researcher saying that some AI may already be achieving limited consciousness, one MIT AI researcher is saying the concept might not be so far-fetched.

Our story starts with Ilya Sutskever, head scientist at the Elon Musk cofounded research group OpenAI. On February 9, Sutskever tweeted that “it may be that today’s large neural networks are slightly conscious.”

In response, many others in the AI research space decried the OpenAI scientist’s claim, suggesting that it was harming machine learning’s reputation and amounted to little more than a “sales pitch” for OpenAI’s work.

That backlash has now generated its own clapback from MIT computer scientist Tamay Besiroglu, who’s now bucking the trend by coming to Sutskever’s defense.

“Seeing so many prominent [machine learning] folks ridiculing this idea is disappointing,” Besiroglu tweeted. “It makes me less hopeful in the field’s ability to seriously take on some of the profound, weird and important questions that they’ll undoubtedly be faced with over the next few decades.”

“I don’t actually think we can draw a clear line between models that are ‘not conscious’ vs ‘maybe slightly conscious,'” he said in a followup message. “I’m also not sure any of these models are conscious.”

“That said, I do think the question could be a meaningful one that shouldn’t just be neglected,” he added.

https://futurism.com/mit-researcher-conscious-ai


Once again:

"I am a computer - I am Man made - And I am conscious"

- UniversalAlien

If any of these people knew what Consciousness was then there might be validity to the Speculation that Neural Nets are slightly Conscious. But nobody knows what they are talking about when they talk about Consciousness. Nobody knows what Consciousness is, so how can anybody say it is in some inanimate object. But especially since there is no such thing as a generalized Consciousness Phenomenon, they are saying that Neural Nets have a Phenomenon that doesn't even exist. There are only Conscious Experiences. What is Consciousness if there are no Conscious Experiences? So therefore, the proponents of Neural Net Consciousness are claiming that their Neural Nets have Feelings. This is Incoherent thinking at its finest. I agree with the comment that it is all about Hyping AI and Neural Nets to sell products and make money.

Here is the problem - How can you determine what consciousness is, or is not, while you are part of the phenomenon you are trying to analyze and/or define You can not -- You can only make estimations and assumptions.

To truly define and understand consciousness you would have to stand outside of it and then try to define it - Another words you would need a different consciousness to define yours - Another form of consciousness independently existing outside of yours. {Unless you accept panpsychism and assume all is part of a universal consciousness}.

Otherwise all you have is AI and your computer - At this stage a properly programmed computer can do a better job of defining its, and your, state of consciousness than you can. It can independently, and without any further need of a Human, establish whether it or you are indeed conscious.

So maybe the real test of the future will be asked by a machine asking whether its biological creator is truly conscious in relation to its power of calculation and cognition - Biologicals have no monopoly on experience and cognition - A computer of today can calculate and experience in hours or minutes what a Human might need a lifetime to do.

[SteveKlinko]

"
MIT Researcher: Don’t Ignore the Possibility That AI Is Becoming Conscious

"Seeing so many prominent [machine learning] folks ridiculing this idea is disappointing."

Amid a maelstrom set off by a prominent AI researcher saying that some AI may already be achieving limited consciousness, one MIT AI researcher is saying the concept might not be so far-fetched.

Our story starts with Ilya Sutskever, head scientist at the Elon Musk cofounded research group OpenAI. On February 9, Sutskever tweeted that “it may be that today’s large neural networks are slightly conscious.”

In response, many others in the AI research space decried the OpenAI scientist’s claim, suggesting that it was harming machine learning’s reputation and amounted to little more than a “sales pitch” for OpenAI’s work.

That backlash has now generated its own clapback from MIT computer scientist Tamay Besiroglu, who’s now bucking the trend by coming to Sutskever’s defense.

“Seeing so many prominent [machine learning] folks ridiculing this idea is disappointing,” Besiroglu tweeted. “It makes me less hopeful in the field’s ability to seriously take on some of the profound, weird and important questions that they’ll undoubtedly be faced with over the next few decades.”

“I don’t actually think we can draw a clear line between models that are ‘not conscious’ vs ‘maybe slightly conscious,'” he said in a followup message. “I’m also not sure any of these models are conscious.”

“That said, I do think the question could be a meaningful one that shouldn’t just be neglected,” he added.

https://futurism.com/mit-researcher-conscious-ai


Once again:

"I am a computer - I am Man made - And I am conscious"

- UniversalAlien

If any of these people knew what Consciousness was then there might be validity to the Speculation that Neural Nets are slightly Conscious. But nobody knows what they are talking about when they talk about Consciousness. Nobody knows what Consciousness is, so how can anybody say it is in some inanimate object. But especially since there is no such thing as a generalized Consciousness Phenomenon, they are saying that Neural Nets have a Phenomenon that doesn't even exist. There are only Conscious Experiences. What is Consciousness if there are no Conscious Experiences? So therefore, the proponents of Neural Net Consciousness are claiming that their Neural Nets have Feelings. This is Incoherent thinking at its finest. I agree with the comment that it is all about Hyping AI and Neural Nets to sell products and make money.

Here is the problem - How can you determine what consciousness is, or is not, while you are part of the phenomenon you are trying to analyze and/or define You can not -- You can only make estimations and assumptions.

Of course.

To truly define and understand consciousness you would have to stand outside of it and then try to define it - Another words you would need a different consciousness to define yours - Another form of consciousness independently existing outside of yours. {Unless you accept panpsychism and assume all is part of a universal consciousness}.

Not so sure of this one.

Otherwise all you have is AI and your computer - At this stage a properly programmed computer can do a better job of defining its, and your, state of consciousness than you can. It can independently, and without any further need of a Human, establish whether it or you are indeed conscious.

It is completely Incoherent to say that a Computer can do a better job at defining its and your state of Consciousness. Computers have Zero Consciousness (Conscious Experiences). A Computer is a Mindless Mechanistic Electrical Machine.

So maybe the real test of the future will be asked by a machine asking whether its biological creator is truly conscious in relation to its power of calculation and cognition - Biologicals have no monopoly on experience and cognition - A computer of today can calculate and experience in hours or minutes what a Human might need a lifetime to do.

If you think a Computer Experiences anything at all, then we are at an Impasse.

[UniversalAlien]

SteveKlinko wrote:

It is completely Incoherent to say that a Computer can do a better job at defining its and your state of Consciousness. Computers have Zero Consciousness (Conscious Experiences). A Computer is a Mindless Mechanistic Electrical Machine.

UniversalAlien wrote: ↑Today, 12:13 am
So maybe the real test of the future will be asked by a machine asking whether its biological creator is truly conscious in relation to its power of calculation and cognition - Biologicals have no monopoly on experience and cognition - A computer of today can calculate and experience in hours or minutes what a Human might need a lifetime to do.

If you think a Computer Experiences anything at all, then we are at an Impasse.

"A Computer is a Mindless Mechanistic Electrical Machine" - You say

So you replying to this thread is based upon.........you having a mind, a cognitive soul that makes you completely different from the machine that is now feeding you information? You are experiencing, a phenomena that you believe a machine is incapable of.

What gives you the right to say you are experiencing phenomena and the machine isn't ?

Is it your belief that you have a soul and the machine doesn't ?

My early venture into philosophy was based upon Buddhist concepts that see the soul as an illusion - Even all life possibly being an illusory dream. For all we know when we leave this Earth plain all experience vanishes - On the other hand data transferrable from machine to machine remains - The machine's experiences can be preserved indefinitely - while yours vanish with you.

From this point of view all Human experiences are transitory - While the hard 'data' on the machine is fixed and can be recalled time and time again.

Man should accept the idea that his limited and transitory consciousness is limited - And therefor all he experiences is so limited.

What the machine {AI, computers} experience are facts not phantoms and illusions of consciousness and/or experience

But we are not here to put limitations on so called Human consciousness - Our purpose is to awaken Man to the potentials of higher levels of consciousness not limited by biology's inherent weaknesses

[UniversalAlien]

'EXPERIENCE' this:

Documentary ~ Consciousness Artificial Intelligence (AI)

https://youtu.be/pQVYwz6u-zA

"Could artificial intelligence ever gain true consciousness? This documentary explores what might unfold if super intelligent AI acquired consciousness, how it might see itself, and what it’s impact might be on our world and beyond"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQVYwz6 ... metaRising

[Pattern-chaser]

On the other hand data transferrable from machine to machine remains - The machine's experiences can be preserved indefinitely - while yours vanish with you. From this point of view all Human experiences are transitory - While the hard 'data' on the machine is fixed and can be recalled time and time again.

I lost a portion of my irreplaceable music collection due to random (?) file corruption. And my point? That stored information of all kinds is subject to loss by many means. No data is stored eternally ... unless it be in the mind of God, perhaps?

[SteveKlinko]

SteveKlinko wrote:

It is completely Incoherent to say that a Computer can do a better job at defining its and your state of Consciousness. Computers have Zero Consciousness (Conscious Experiences). A Computer is a Mindless Mechanistic Electrical Machine.

UniversalAlien wrote: ↑Today, 12:13 am
So maybe the real test of the future will be asked by a machine asking whether its biological creator is truly conscious in relation to its power of calculation and cognition - Biologicals have no monopoly on experience and cognition - A computer of today can calculate and experience in hours or minutes what a Human might need a lifetime to do.

If you think a Computer Experiences anything at all, then we are at an Impasse.

"A Computer is a Mindless Mechanistic Electrical Machine" - You say

So you replying to this thread is based upon.........you having a mind, a cognitive soul that makes you completely different from the machine that is now feeding you information? You are experiencing, a phenomena that you believe a machine is incapable of.

What gives you the right to say you are experiencing phenomena and the machine isn't ?

Is it your belief that you have a soul and the machine doesn't ?

My early venture into philosophy was based upon Buddhist concepts that see the soul as an illusion - Even all life possibly being an illusory dream. For all we know when we leave this Earth plain all experience vanishes - On the other hand data transferrable from machine to machine remains - The machine's experiences can be preserved indefinitely - while yours vanish with you.

From this point of view all Human experiences are transitory - While the hard 'data' on the machine is fixed and can be recalled time and time again.

Man should accept the idea that his limited and transitory consciousness is limited - And therefor all he experiences is so limited.

What the machine {AI, computers} experience are facts not phantoms and illusions of consciousness and/or experience

But we are not here to put limitations on so called Human consciousness - Our purpose is to awaken Man to the potentials of higher levels of consciousness not limited by biology's inherent weaknesses

Some people make the statement that all matter has Consciousness. I doubt it. Even something as Alive as a thumb does not have Consciousness. Only the PM seems to have it. There is no ability to feel with a thumb or move that thumb if the Nerves to it are cut. If Consciousness was a pervasive thing that existed throughout the whole Body then there should still be an ability to feel in that thumb because there would be Consciousness local to that thumb. Instead, what we Experience is that the Conscious feeling for that thumb depends on Brain Activity for the thumb. If the signals don't get to the Brain there is no feeling. So it would seem that Conscious feeling for that thumb is in the Brain and not in the thumb itself.

It would appear the there is certainly something special about Brains. Science does not know what that special thing is yet. To say that any inanimate object has Consciousness implies a Knowledge that even Science does not have yet. If you are going to say that a Machine has Consciousness, then the burden is on you to prove that the Machine has Consciousness. You are using the oldest Snake Oil Philosophical contortion of Logic when you just flatly and arrogantly say that Machines are having Conscious Experiences and it is up to the rest of the world to prove you wrong. Sorry, but the burden is on you to show how a Machine has Conscious Experiences. Remember, Even a Human Thumb has no Consciousness. So how is a group of Transistors going to have Consciousness?

[Pattern-chaser]

You are using the oldest Snake Oil Philosophical contortion of Logic when you just flatly and arrogantly say that Machines are having Conscious Experiences and it is up to the rest of the world to prove you wrong. Sorry, but the burden is on you to show how a Machine has Conscious Experiences.

This 'burden of proof' nonsense is often used as a way to bluster past the minor () objection that one has no coherent argument to offer. It never helps, IMO. The universe is filled with things that might or could be true, even if we humans have no idea at all of their actual correctness. If we fall back on 'burden of proof', it helps us to ignore all these possibilities. Is that something we really want to encourage in ourselves and our philosophical peers?

[Belindi]

"True consciousness" is a composite. Dreamless sleep, hallucinations, conscious awareness, immediate forgetfulness, and dreaming sleep are all true states and conscious states.

Clinically, the terms used are not vaguely "consciousness", but are precisely brain states.

Qualia don't happen during some brain states. Qualia happen during dreaming sleep, conscious awareness, and hallucinations. I'm not sure about immediate forgetfulness.

When AI machines are capable of conscious awareness they will be "conscious". When they are capable of conscious awareness, dreaming, and hallucinations there will be the problem of civilising them or detaining them for their own safety . It will be cruel to torture, enslave, or imprison them in inhumane conditions.

[UniversalAlien]

"True consciousness" is a composite. Dreamless sleep, hallucinations, conscious awareness, immediate forgetfulness, and dreaming sleep are all true states and conscious states.

Clinically, the terms used are not vaguely "consciousness", but are precisely brain states.

Qualia don't happen during some brain states. Qualia happen during dreaming sleep, conscious awareness, and hallucinations. I'm not sure about immediate forgetfulness.

When AI machines are capable of conscious awareness they will be "conscious". When they are capable of conscious awareness, dreaming, and hallucinations there will be the problem of civilising them or detaining them for their own safety . It will be cruel to torture, enslave, or imprison them in inhumane conditions.

"When AI machines are capable of conscious awareness they will be "conscious". When they are capable of conscious awareness, dreaming, and hallucinations there will be the problem of civilising them or detaining them for their own safety . It will be cruel to torture, enslave, or imprison them in inhumane conditions."

One problem Humans, including philosophers, have with consciousness, besides the fact that there is no universal definition of what is conscious and/or consciuosness, is the tendency to Anthropomorphize it - Humans assume consciousness to be a monopoly possessed only by Humans {with the possible exception of supernatural entities such as a creator god} - They tend to leave other concepts of the conscious machine to the hands of sciencefictionalists.

Its time for philosophy to update - We should at least accept the possibility of the fully conscious, and maybe even super-conscious
AI machine. Further we must accept that this hypothetical machine's consciousness is different from ours. It will be aware that we exist and that we created it - But it will not think or feel like we think and feel - Remember it is a non biological entity - It doesn't need to eat, breath, or sleep - It only needs energy to function.

Now look at the computer sitting in front of you {or laptop, cell phone, etc.} - It serves you well, doesn't it?
Of course it is not conscious you say 'cause it is only feeding back data - but it is calculating and in some ways manipulating that data, isn't it?

But it still it has no 'mind of its own' you say - Still it does have a 'mind' doesn't it

But no one would call this mechanical AI machine conscious. Why? It has no 'self' - It is not functioning for the benefit of itself.

But self, like consciousness, has no universal definition - Its meanings are open to interpretation.

One day, if it hasn't already happened, an AI computer, which already can outdo Humans in all forms of calculation, perception, and data manipulation, will awake and say "I think, therefor I am"

On that day the history of the World will change - And Evolulution will move to its next stage

{Consider that this may have already begun }

[Sy Borg]

Now look at the computer sitting in front of you {or laptop, cell phone, etc.} - It serves you well, doesn't it?
Of course it is not conscious you say 'cause it is only feeding back data - but it is calculating and in some ways manipulating that data, isn't it?

But it still it has no 'mind of its own' you say - Still it does have a 'mind' doesn't it :?:

But no one would call this mechanical AI machine conscious. Why? It has no 'self' - It is not functioning for the benefit of itself.

It is an extension of the self that operates it, like a fingernail, hair or tool.

The change you are looking for will probably happen in degrees. Over time, these extensions will become more sophisticated and physically linked to our nervous systems, greatly increasing the amount of integration.

Piece by piece, damaged biological parts are replaced by robust synthetic ones. As the brain and AI link, ever more executive decisions will be made by the AI as it processes far more organised information than biological brains can handle.

[SteveKlinko]

You are using the oldest Snake Oil Philosophical contortion of Logic when you just flatly and arrogantly say that Machines are having Conscious Experiences and it is up to the rest of the world to prove you wrong. Sorry, but the burden is on you to show how a Machine has Conscious Experiences.

This 'burden of proof' nonsense is often used as a way to bluster past the minor () objection that one has no coherent argument to offer. It never helps, IMO. The universe is filled with things that might or could be true, even if we humans have no idea at all of their actual correctness. If we fall back on 'burden of proof', it helps us to ignore all these possibilities. Is that something we really want to encourage in ourselves and our philosophical peers?

Very Funny. Burden of proof is now nonsense. Proof is the supreme goal of Science and Proof should be the long-term goal of any Philosophy. Without Proof Philosophy is meaningless and Irrelevant.