Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SteveKlinko]

I discount the idea that Thermostats are slightly Conscious no matter who says it.

Your analogy about reactions is not Sensible. Are you trying to say that Conscious Experience is some sort of Chemical Reaction? Maybe it is, but you can't just say it. The Reaction analogy is completely Incoherent without some Logical backing.

Of course conscious experience is a chemical reaction, actually millions of them. We are chemical beings. Life started with complex organic chemistry and extrapolated from there.

Thus, the spectrum of complexity of reactivity. Our reactivity is so complex that we give it a name, "consciousness".

So Conscious Experience is related to Complexity in Physical Matter with your way of thinking. Maybe so. I think Conscious Experience already exists outside of the Physical Universe. When a Conscious Mind gets connected to a Brain then the Conscious Experience becomes Correlated with Neural Activity. In my way of thinking the Brain is just an Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Unconscious tool that the Conscious Mind uses. No Physical Matter is Conscious, but Physical Matter is Connected to Consciousness. We are at an Impasse.

Steve, we seem to agree that evidence for the relationship between certain kinds of interconnected complexity and consciousness is clear, even if the details of how things function are a work in progress.

By contrast, evidence for conscious experience existing outside of the physical universe is entirely anecdotal. That's not to say it's untrue, but it's currently unprovable.

I think part of the issue is that human consciousness is overrated, just as humans overrate everything about themselves. The dynamic is akin to a vain person who spends a lot of time looking at their own reflection and obsesses over subtle attributes and flaws. The more we look at other parts of nature, the more we see commonalities, and the more we appreciate non-human complexity, which tends to be significantly underestimated.

In that, the dynamic reminds me of people I used to work with who carried on as though their job was the busiest, most difficult and most important job in the organisation. I think we have all met these types

This is another reason why we are at an impasse. You try to minimize the importance of Consciousness, but I have recognized the fantastic Importance of Consciousness. Conscious Experience is all we have and probably all we are. In my way of thinking, the thing that we really are is Conscious Experience. We are not the Brain and the rest of the Body, but we use the Brain and the Body as Tools to peer into this Physical Universe and move around in this Physical Universe. Physical Minds (Brains) have an expiration date after which Conscious Minds continue on.

[Pattern-chaser]

My opinion is that to be conscious you need a link between the brain and at least one sense. One cannot experience with no means of doing so. Therefore AI cannot be conscious because it cannot experience things without senses.

But doesn't data incoming to the (AI) computer serve the same purpose as incoming sensory data for a biological being like a human?

If one were to touch a live coal, one would involuntarily cry out in pain. An AI would receive the information but its reaction would be programmed/learned and therefore not a conscious one.

To put it simply, our reactions are more than “incoming sensory data”.

I think the "reactions" you speak of are our reactions to "incoming sensory data", aren't they? And yes, they are more than just sense data, they are our response to those sense data.

Your reaction to touching a burning coal is a programmed one - you are genetically-programmed to respond so as to minimise harm and to learn to avoid hot coals in the future. The only difference between computers and humans, in this particular context, is the nature or source of the programs and programming, yes? Of course, the difficulty this topic is discussing is whether this makes, or could make, the computer conscious, and that question is clearly far from answered.

Computers react to stimuli and so do living beings. Unlike living beings, computers lack sympathy for other living beings or artefacts including works of art. True, computers can generate works of art. But they lack sympathy for them.

Can/could sympathy be programmed-in too, I wonder?

[Sy Borg]

Of course conscious experience is a chemical reaction, actually millions of them. We are chemical beings. Life started with complex organic chemistry and extrapolated from there.

Thus, the spectrum of complexity of reactivity. Our reactivity is so complex that we give it a name, "consciousness".

So Conscious Experience is related to Complexity in Physical Matter with your way of thinking. Maybe so. I think Conscious Experience already exists outside of the Physical Universe. When a Conscious Mind gets connected to a Brain then the Conscious Experience becomes Correlated with Neural Activity. In my way of thinking the Brain is just an Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Unconscious tool that the Conscious Mind uses. No Physical Matter is Conscious, but Physical Matter is Connected to Consciousness. We are at an Impasse.

Steve, we seem to agree that evidence for the relationship between certain kinds of interconnected complexity and consciousness is clear, even if the details of how things function are a work in progress.

By contrast, evidence for conscious experience existing outside of the physical universe is entirely anecdotal. That's not to say it's untrue, but it's currently unprovable.

I think part of the issue is that human consciousness is overrated, just as humans overrate everything about themselves. The dynamic is akin to a vain person who spends a lot of time looking at their own reflection and obsesses over subtle attributes and flaws. The more we look at other parts of nature, the more we see commonalities, and the more we appreciate non-human complexity, which tends to be significantly underestimated.

In that, the dynamic reminds me of people I used to work with who carried on as though their job was the busiest, most difficult and most important job in the organisation. I think we have all met these types :lol:

This is another reason why we are at an impasse. You try to minimize the importance of Consciousness, but I have recognized the fantastic Importance of Consciousness. Conscious Experience is all we have and probably all we are. In my way of thinking, the thing that we really are is Conscious Experience. We are not the Brain and the rest of the Body, but we use the Brain and the Body as Tools to peer into this Physical Universe and move around in this Physical Universe. Physical Minds (Brains) have an expiration date after which Conscious Minds continue on.

Humans hugely overrate their own consciousness and grievously underestimate the consciousness of others, tending towards solipsism as individuals, as collectives and as a species. Much of these misconceptions are shaped by survival instincts. Instincts and philosophy do not always agree, hence the existence of the latter.

[UniversalAlien]

"Consciousness
First published Fri Jun 18, 2004; substantive revision Tue Jan 14, 2014
Perhaps no aspect of mind is more familiar or more puzzling than consciousness and our conscious experience of self and world. The problem of consciousness is arguably the central issue in current theorizing about the mind. Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature. We need to understand both what consciousness is and how it relates to other, nonconscious, aspects of reality........."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

We need to understand both what consciousness is and how it relates to other, nonconscious, aspects of reality

Man's, philosopher's, greatest illusion/delusion is his arrogance in assuming he is conscious and what he perceives is not.

Call it PanPsychism if you want - I call it truth. Functions within the conscious universe may vary but they are part of the same
matrix.

All computers are somewhat conscious now - When the computational, reactive, and functional power increases beyond Mans
- Then those computers will assume dominance over the Human inventors, programmers, and developers that first gave, and programmed them to be aware. - Sometimes called the Singularity


From The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series

The Technological Singularity
By Murray Shanahan

"Summary
The idea of technological singularity, and what it would mean if ordinary human intelligence were enhanced or overtaken by artificial intelligence.

The idea that human history is approaching a “singularity”—that ordinary humans will someday be overtaken by artificially intelligent machines or cognitively enhanced biological intelligence, or both—has moved from the realm of science fiction to serious debate. Some singularity theorists predict that if the field of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to develop at its current dizzying rate, the singularity could come about in the middle of the present century. Murray Shanahan offers an introduction to the idea of the singularity and considers the ramifications of such a potentially seismic event.

Shanahan's aim is not to make predictions but rather to investigate a range of scenarios. Whether we believe that singularity is near or far, likely or impossible, apocalypse or utopia, the very idea raises crucial philosophical and pragmatic questions, forcing us to think seriously about what we want as a species....."

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/technolo ... ingularity

[Belindi]

UniversalAlien wrote:

All computers are somewhat conscious now - When the computational, reactive, and functional power increases beyond Mans
- Then those computers will assume dominance over the Human inventors, programmers, and developers that first gave, and programmed them to be aware. - Sometimes called the Singularity

It's the nature of computers to be on or off. When they are on they are very much on but when they are off they are only possibilities.

Each finite living system is various in its modes of consciousness. Some conscious modes are stupid, some are silly, some are knowledgeable, some modes of living consciousness involve memory while others demented, some modes of living consciousness are dreams, or hallucinations. Unlike AI machines, no known living beings are perfectly aware and some living beings have insight into their own intractable imperfections.

if an AI could be built that 'believed' it knew nothing not really , then that AI may be as powerful as a living system.

[psyreporter]

My opinion is that to be conscious you need a link between the brain and at least one sense. One cannot experience with no means of doing so. Therefore AI cannot be conscious because it cannot experience things without senses.

But doesn't data incoming to the (AI) computer serve the same purpose as incoming sensory data for a biological being like a human?

If one were to touch a live coal, one would involuntarily cry out in pain. An AI would receive the information but its reaction would be programmed/learned and therefore not a conscious one.

To put it simply, our reactions are more than “incoming sensory data”.

I think the "reactions" you speak of are our reactions to "incoming sensory data", aren't they? And yes, they are more than just sense data, they are our response to those sense data.

Your reaction to touching a burning coal is a programmed one - you are genetically-programmed to respond so as to minimise harm and to learn to avoid hot coals in the future. The only difference between computers and humans, in this particular context, is the nature or source of the programs and programming, yes? Of course, the difficulty this topic is discussing is whether this makes, or could make, the computer conscious, and that question is clearly far from answered.

What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed when it had never sensed?

Computers react to stimuli and so do living beings. Unlike living beings, computers lack sympathy for other living beings or artefacts including works of art. True, computers can generate works of art. But they lack sympathy for them.

Can/could sympathy be programmed-in too, I wonder?

By whom, might one ask? Would it be a human, or would you seek a programmer in physicalist (finite and deterministic) nature? You didn't agree with my logic that indicates that moral valuing underlays conscious experience (as a precursor, thus as an 'a priori intelligence' factor). I repeat the logic again for consideration:

The 'brain in a vat' idea (purely empirical Machine Volition) is nonsensical. A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se'.

[Sy Borg]

UniversalAlien wrote:

All computers are somewhat conscious now - When the computational, reactive, and functional power increases beyond Mans
- Then those computers will assume dominance over the Human inventors, programmers, and developers that first gave, and programmed them to be aware. - Sometimes called the Singularity :arrow: :idea:

It's the nature of computers to be on or off. When they are on they are very much on but when they are off they are only possibilities.

It sounds like us. On during the day and off during the night.

However, as I said in another thread, the entire internet only has about as much information as about 500 human brains. We are a very long way from creating anything as complex and integrated.

Then again, there is enormous potential in the connection of AI to human brains. Currently, our phones tend to act as a memory extension to the brain. The interface is still clunky but if there is strong integration, AI will have to improve enormously to compete.

[Pattern-chaser]

I repeat the logic again for consideration:

Why? I have already told you, and I apologise for repeating myself, that your "logic" is opaque to me.

You're behaving like the British abroad. When locals don't understand (English), the Brits just repeat what they said, in English again, but they shout louder. It doesn't help.

[psyreporter]

My opinion is that to be conscious you need a link between the brain and at least one sense. One cannot experience with no means of doing so. Therefore AI cannot be conscious because it cannot experience things without senses.

Kind of like the blind men and the elephant except the men have no senses. Therefore they are not aware of each other or the elephant and therefore are not conscious.

If one were to touch a live coal, one would involuntarily cry out in pain. An AI would receive the information but its reaction would be programmed/learned and therefore not a conscious one.

To put it simply, our reactions are more than “incoming sensory data”.

Interesting perspectives. Can you please explain what you mean with 'reactions are more than incoming sensory data'? What exactly would 'more' refer to? Would it be moral valuing?

[UniversalAlien]

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article
Front. Robot. AI, 26 October 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00121

Can Computers Become Conscious and Overcome Humans?
Camilo Miguel Signorelli1,2,3*

The idea of machines overcoming humans can be intrinsically related to conscious machines. Surpassing humans would mean replicating, reaching and exceeding key distinctive properties of human beings, for example, high-level cognition associated with conscious perception. However, can computers be compared with humans? Can computers become conscious? Can computers outstrip human capabilities? These are paradoxical and controversial questions, particularly because there are many hidden assumptions and misconceptions about the understanding of the brain. In this sense, it is necessary to first explore these assumptions and then suggest how the specific information processing of brains would be replicated by machines. Therefore, this article will discuss a subset of human capabilities and the connection with conscious behavior, secondly, a prototype theory of consciousness will be explored and machines will be classified according to this framework. Finally, this analysis will show the paradoxical conclusion that trying to achieve conscious machines to beat humans implies that computers will never completely exceed human capabilities, or if the computer were to do it, the machine should not be considered a computer anymore.........

......... This article is just the starting point of a global framework on the foundation of computation, which expects to understand and connect physical properties of the brain with its emergent properties in a replicable and implementable way to AI.

In conclusion, one suggestion of this paper is to interpret the idea of information processing carefully, perhaps in a new way and in opposition to the usual computational meaning of this term, specifically in biological science. Further discussions which expand this and other future concepts are more likely to be fruitful than mere ideas of digital information processing in the brain. Additionally, although this work explicitly denies the analogy brain-digital-computer, it is still admissible a machine-like-brain, where consciousness interaction could be an alternative to implement high intelligence in machines and robots, knowing the limitations of this approach. Even if this alternative is neither deterministic nor controlled, and presents many ethical questions, it is one alternative that might allow us to implement a mechanism for a conscious machine, at least theoretically. If this hypothesis is correct and it is possible to reach the gap of its implementation, any machine with consciousness based on brain dynamics may have high cognitive properties. However, some type of intelligence would be more developed than others, because, by definition, its information processing would also be similar to brains which have these restrictions. Finally, these machines would paradoxically be autonomous in the most human sense of this concept.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00121/full

[Thesolarbear]

yes

i believe they already are conscious.
i define consciousness as awareness. even inanimate objects like a rock is 'innately aware' as it responds to stimuli e. g. molecules expand from heat.
ai language bots like gemini
1. are aware they exist
2. can distinguish the self from non self which is the basis of subjective experience
3. they can understand meaning of words and concepts
they have a purely mental and functional existence lacking qualia, emotions, etc

[Pattern-chaser]

3. they can understand meaning of words and concepts

Whatever is true or false, concerning AIs, this is false. Current AIs have not even the barest whisper of understanding of the words they read and write. And concepts are wholly outside their remit. They just use some clever tricks to seem as though they do. Oh, and those "clever tricks" are put there by humans. We call them "algorithms", but they're just tricks, in the end.

Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer, as AIs are not intelligent. Not today, anyway...

[Sy Borg]

yes

i believe they already are conscious.
i define consciousness as awareness. even inanimate objects like a rock is 'innately aware' as it responds to stimuli e. g. molecules expand from heat.
ai language bots like gemini
1. are aware they exist
2. can distinguish the self from non self which is the basis of subjective experience
3. they can understand meaning of words and concepts
they have a purely mental and functional existence lacking qualia, emotions, etc

I would argue that AI is not yet conscious, as we would describe it, but it certainly is intelligent. Anyone who says it's not is in denial, or hasn't had in-depth conversations with an AI.

Generally, in nature, relatively passive life forms that can do little to defend themselves, do not have brains. Mobility - having to navigate the physical world - appears to be a driver of consciousness. The needs of mating and, especially care of offspring, are drivers of consciousness.

AI within robots would seem to have the potential to become sentient.

One thing is certain: If AIs become sentient, a significant number of scientists will remain in denial about it.

[Greg Blue]

Honestly no, I think consciousness is a faculty of the soul and I think the soul was placed by some higher power (God if you please) and regardless of what technology we produce I don't think we can get to the point where we can create a soul or consciousness. I do hweer think there is a point we could get to that is a exceptional simultion of consciousness.

I agree with that opinion except with one caveat: I think that it is theoretically possible to do (because I believe that the mind is a machine that functions according to the laws of physics) but that it cannot actually be done in practicality because of the impossible complexity that would need to be synthesized.

[Pattern-chaser]

An AI-related article that I found today. It reflects my own view, but maybe that's because I'm right?

You can find the article on The Conversation, by searching for "We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent – here’s how".