AI voice is a dead thing talking

I'm sure that's true. I suppose we could spend a huge amount of time figuring that out, but I think we could relatively easily approximate what impact they would have on thoughts and behaviour. I'd argue the AI can sufficiently approximate the impact of the chemicals, that's all we need for love to exist (it's not like love is a hugely precise tool anyway). That being said, if we argue that definitionally, the chemistry needs to be there, then I'm happy enough to let the AI have a little chemical box where enough chemistry takes place to tick the box. We don't necessarily need to understand everything that goes on in that box, just like we don't need to understand love to feel it.

I could make many half-baked arguments about what computers are or can become capable of, but my main question in this thread is, what if humans too are not much beyond one of those Robo-Vacs? What if we can easily reproduce everything humans can do, not because we're so awesome at programming, but because the task is easier than we told ourselves?

Well, do humans have free will (in any sense that couldn't be replicated with a computer)?

 

I will reply to three of your arguments, now, we with several remaining for a future reply. This post will correct
1) your misstatement about the undefinable nature of consciousness, &
2) your misunderstanding about the way that computers can now process information, apart from sets of human-written instructions; it will, lastly, show
3) the lack of any foundation, for your argument as to the separate natures of physical reality and "spirit," which you nonetheless stipulate as a prerequisite for "consciousness."


I will include, also, your quotes which I had been meaning to address alongside those of others; since you replied to me, it makes more sense to combine your responses, and not hold up my reply, to the rest of that group.

This is clearly not an argument, but merely your stating of a personal belief, of the "religious" type; that is, one, the accuracy of which, cannot be factually appraised.

This is a misunderstanding. In its most basic sense, "consciousness" is described as having "inner experience."

OK, let's pause to take stock of what you've laid out, so far. I wanted to include the full context of your argument, though will not be able to reply to it's entirety, right now, only those points, highlighted in magenta.

So your next contention, here, is that we can only simulate, but not create, intelligence. From earlier comments, by numerous people, I think including yourself-- let me set you all straight: an A.l.would not be merely following an algorithm, or sequence of pre-programmed steps. In point of fact, we have already moved beyond that, so that we have computers that can solve problems, without our knowing what data they've used, to arrive at their conclusions. If we make the internet's data available to them, they can teach themselves. It can develop a language to use, between itself and another computer. Computers can even imagine things: they now use computers to generate limitless data sets for other computers to use, to learn from (things like, how to recognize objects). These generators, can show images from angles, that they have never been shown.

https://news.mit.edu/2022/synthetic-datasets-ai-image-classification-0315
<Snip>
Huge amounts of data are needed to train machine-learning models to perform image classification tasks, such as identifying damage in satellite photos following a natural disaster. However, these data are not always easy to come by. Datasets may cost millions of dollars to generate, if usable data exist in the first place, and even the best datasets often contain biases that negatively impact a model’s performance.

To circumvent some of the problems presented by datasets, MIT researchers developed a method for training a machine learning model that, rather than using a dataset, uses a special type of machine-learning model to generate extremely realistic synthetic data that can train another model for downstream vision tasks.

Their results show that a contrastive representation learning model trained using only these synthetic data is able to learn visual representations that rival or even outperform those learned from real data.

This special machine-learning model, known as a generative model, requires far less memory to store or share than a dataset. Using synthetic data also has the potential to sidestep some concerns around privacy and usage rights that limit how some real data can be distributed. A generative model could also be edited to remove certain attributes, like race or gender, which could address some biases that exist in traditional datasets.

“We knew that this method should eventually work; we just needed to wait for these generative models to get better and better. But we were especially pleased when we showed that this method sometimes does even better than the real thing,” says Ali Jahanian, a research scientist in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and lead author of the paper...

But generative models are even more useful because they learn how to transform the underlying data on which they are trained, he says. If the model is trained on images of cars, it can “imagine” how a car would look in different situations — situations it did not see during training — and then output images that show the car in unique poses, colors, or sizes.

Having multiple views of the same image is important for a technique called contrastive learning, where a machine-learning model is shown many unlabeled images to learn which pairs are similar or different.

The researchers connected a pretrained generative model to a contrastive learning model in a way that allowed the two models to work together automatically. The contrastive learner could tell the generative model to produce different views of an object, and then learn to identify that object from multiple angles, Jahanian explains.
<End Snip>


Then you make the point, that the basis for consciousness is "spiritual," not material. Of course, you once more have no basis for this conception. Some scientists are finally starting to consider the possibility, that "consciousness" is a feature of all matter. Not human consciousness, of course-- but simple consciousness, which essentially evolves with the complexity of the material thing, of which it is part. It is, of course, only an unproven theory, at this point-- but that puts it on a par with your own speculation. Though the logic behind yours, seems a bit more problematic, as you claim that this spiritual element, necessary for consciousness, is the very source for the material universe, but that they are somehow separate, exist in "separate spheres," as you put it. Yet, how would we then be "conscious?" If that spirit were necessary, wouldn't it have to be in the same place, as the consciousness: IOW, in the physical sphere?

Just curious-- what makes you so certain, that spirit could not inhabit some inorganic material?

 

Our inner experience, is not an illusion, at all. I would have thought that was self-evident, but I guess that was my illusion. Any of your thoughts about anything, which might differ from those of anyone else, in the same circumstance-- thereby showing that these are not some thoughts, "preassigned" to all humans-- would qualify as your own "inner experience." IOW, they are not solely reliant on your surrounding stimuli. That we all have different thoughts, different opinions, get different impressions, of the same thing, is indicative of varying inner processing experiences; that we have different goals, desires, ambitions, and dreams, is proof of overall, individualized, inner experiences.

Just to be sure we're on the same page, here-- consciousness exists, you understand, beyond human beings, right?

 

When people say "self-evident", that's usually a que to be on the lookout for unwarranted assumptions.

So, if we take an AI, and adjust their opinions/preferences/similar a little (or a lot), maybe randomise them at "birth", so that they react differently to another AI, that also qualifies as the AI having an "inner experience"?

I see no reason to believe that our different thoughts/opinions/impressions indicate anything beyond what a computer could have. They may very well be based either on the sum of our life experiences and probably a little simple randomisation, and give rise to different opinions and impressions without requiring anything a computer wouldn't have.

I guess I don't understand that.

Well, I know that something that I have identified as consciousness exists, because I experience it (and in fact, my experience of it defines it). I do not know that that consciousness is fundamentally anything beyond Adfundum's Robo-Vacs, just a bit more complicated and harder to observe from the outside.

 

This isn't an intrinsic "problem," except of peoples' erroneous thinking. Why do most here seem to equate "consciousness" with "humanity?" That is a specious connection. It should be a given, that A.I. consciousness, would be different, probably drastically so, from our own sense of consciousness. Consider something so simple as the human experience of "smell," with that of a bloodhound, tiger, turkey, or polar bear. Or compare human vision, with the much greater spectrum of colors, seen by some birds, for instance.

If extra-terrestrial, cybernetic beings visited us, would we assume that their conscious experience, mimicked our own?

The flaw in definition, no offense, is your own, here-- not to imply that it isn't a common one. You seem to be assuming, that we are going to give the Intelligence, its "personality." Now, if we were to try to do such a thing-- and I noted your interesting mention of some wanting to incorporate human cerebral tissue in an A.I., which I had not heard, do not think we are close to being capable of doing, and am sure would be a highly controversial step-- then it would be an artificially created consciousness. But our interest in this, is only for its "brain" power, in assisting our analysis of our world-- not for its lively conversation. Whatever personality an A.I. possessed, then, should be assumed to stem from the very nature of its constituent parts.

These are good, and thoughtful, questions. In creating true A.I., I think we must acknowledge that we cannot fully control such things.

 

LOL-- you imply that there is something sketchy in my logic, without being able to cite anything specific, and then you go ahead to postulate something beyond the pale of not only modern technology, but even of current conceptualizing or intent. How would you propose, we might be able to do such a thing?

Your line of thought is becoming far too vaguely philosophical and theoretical. If my own "programming" had been "adjusted" so that I would respond to your post, in just the manner that I have, then you might claim that I am not truly "conscious." But that, of course, would be ridiculous, as all ideas are relative. When we talk about inner experience, we are naturally talking about that individual experience, itself, and not speculating over possible Psychological Overlords of humanity. Human "consciousness," is taken for a given, to be the way that each of us experiences it: as our own, unique experiencing, understanding, and conceptualizing of the world, and of our existence in it. The reason that this experience exists, is almost beside the point.

Again, your argument-- which here goes from merely being that any cybernetic "consciousness" would only be the result of humans tricking it, into a mistaken belief, that we, ourselves, are only, essentially, computers-- is rather beside the point, highly speculative (and unprovable), and directly contradicts the accepted scientific (and non scientific) view, that all human beings have distinctly unique personalities, and experiences of our world.

Also, who is it, that we would be "tricking" into believing it is conscious? The belief, in itself, is an "inner experience."

 

It's an opinion, and though it's not falsifiable, it's not an unreasonable opinion. I've yet to see any evidence of it. I will except 'cyborg' stuff, since that includes organic matter.

Nah, that really doesn't define it, it just locates it, and that's not quite the same thing.

It's still simulation. There is no sentience 'imagining' Bits and bytes are electrons flowing or not flowing, that is the supreme essence of all things taht require electricity from an external source (batteries are external, as well).

It's an unfalsifiable statement. Science will never accept it as a fundamental principle because science assumes that the only things that exist are those
things which are observable, falsifiable. However, some have 'observed' when they had an out of body experience. Should that ever happen to you,
you will sing a different tune. UNtil then, there is no possible way to show someone who has never experience an OOBE to realize the truth of my statement.
and the reason is that the spiritual basis to existence does not exist in time and space, it is out of science's reach. But your claim does not negate mine, necessarily.

Any effort to discover the nature of consciousness in matter will always wind up in frustration, simply because consciousness has a spiritual basis, not a material one.

there are two types of consciousness: 1. Human consciousness, 2, consciousness of lower organisms.
#1 is self aware. #2 is aware not not self aware, it is close to what a dream state is. Animals exist in a kind of dream state.

It most certainly doesn't solve it. I can never solve it. this was best spoken of in this quote:

Life is not a problem to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived.

Life is a mystery. It will always be a mystery.

Your problem arises because you are trying to apply logic to the sphere which does not exist in time and space. The 'mind' cannot conceive of the ultimate truth. It exists where no words can go.

I don't doubt that it probably does, but it's not the kind that is 'conscious'.

Spirit exists in a realm that is affected by frequencies. Now, by 'frequencies' these are beyond measurable spectrum, and 'frequency' is probably the wrong term, but there is no term to accurately describe the concept, other than I am using it in a metaphorical/allegorical sense. The higher the frequency of the organism, the more advanced spirit that it will attract to it. Inorganic matter is too low of a frequency to accommodate a 'soul' that has enough intelligence to inhabit, say, a one celled creature, though it does contain a spiritual essence, just that it is of the lowest kind. The entire universe has a spiritual essence, it permeates all things. It's highest forms permeate organic matter, which is where 'souls' (you and me) were synthesized, long ago. Some of us in the spiritual community are starting to use the term 'density' to describe this concept, but even that leaves me wanting. Naturally, we are dealing with something that does not exist in time and space (yet it does exist).

Souls, all of us, started out as one cell creatures, millions of years ago, Our souls evolved up the evolutionary scale right along with the organic evolution. We existed in an inorganic state billions, maybe trillions, of years prior to it in an inert suspended state. Eventually, like a rolling stone gathers moss, we gather enough of spirituality to inhabit the lowest form of organism, the one celled creature, and then we are off on the journey of life towards enlightenment, a process that takes a few million years.

all things organic, including spiritual souls, start off as something very small, take root, sprout, grow wings, achieve higher states, onward until each of us reach spiritual fruition, which some call 'enlightenment'. Each of us are millions of years old, and have experience millions of lives. Spirituality is an organic process,it's just that it exists at a much higher harmonic that it is not detectable, let alone visible to the human eyes or by machines (some sensitive persons can 'see' 'soul' 'auras' that sort of thing).

If you do not understand what is going on in life in a greater, more spiritual context, nothing I'm saying will make any sense.

Can I prove any of this? No, but it is "my philosophy', and this is a philosophy forum. Philosophy isn't, nor can it be, about 'proving' anything. It's about intellectual stimulation. Now, its' just and fair to query one's 'philosophy' as you are doing, but when you ask for 'proof', you are in the wrong forum, you need to move to the science forum for that type if query. But, I'm not going to post something like this OP in a science forum. In this forum, I'm not year to convince anyone of anything, let alone 'prove' anything. in this forum, ,I'm here merely for conversation, stimulation, feedback. I don't mind being challenged, but we must put things in their proper perspective, context, and framework..

 

Sorry, but cannot do.

You might want to consider the possibility that that it will never happen because under your assumption infinity is much longer than you can wait it out.

It's not just those two examples, it's EVERYTHING.

I am not sure about your first statement, but the second is 100% correct. If people would accept this, it would be much more fun chatting with folks here.

The key is to understand that you have to give yourself up to something greater...be it God or whatever, otherwise, you will succumb to temptations that makes the road to hell considerably shorter.

 

And, if you don't mind, I am going to interpret words, by their actual meanings. "Consciousness" is not a concept, which can only be discussed in a religious or spiritual context-- in fact there is no manifest reason, why any such concern, need apply at all.

Are you saying that you accept the OP's argument, that:
1) consciousness is contingent upon "spirit;" and

2) spirit cannot come into being, in matter, either of its own accord, or through its will to invest anything physical, with its presence (IOW, cannot "possess" objects)?

If so, I am curious: how did it become part of us? Just because we say so?


Is it your impression, that to participate in this thread, one need accept those stipulations of the OP? You see, it had been my own sense, that these were parts of his argument. Likewise, it has been my belief that, in this debate forum, we had the distinct option to argue against ideas that we find to lack factual underpinning, or common sense. Have I been mistaken? If not, I see no justification for your seemingly expecting me to have known that you were putting forth some argument, based on hypotheticals that you do not accept to be true. Do you not think this would be a circumstance, in which the onus for clarity, would fall upon you?

 

It makes no sense to wade any further into this argument, before getting straight, its fulcrum: "consciousness." Like many words in English, (& I would expect, in most languages), this term can be used in multiple ways. With regard to A.I., "consciousness" is most concerned, to speak in layman's terms, with the element of free, or independent thought. Right now, some machines are at the point of extrapolating from information they've been given. The next step, is actually thinking about that information, and how it relates to other information. That leads to the other aspect of consciousness, that some stress in regards to artificial intelligence, largely from an ethical perspective: self-awareness, and its ramifications, regarding volition.

Now, if you had wanted to discuss this issue from a strictly "spiritualist" perspective, that would be something that you should have made unambiguously clear, from the outset. For example: When the scientific community discuss A.I., ...However, I would like to consider it from a purely spiritual perspective, with others who agree with this specialized definition of consciousness, I will be using.

To be clear, that is not how I had read your OP. But it appears, based on his reply to my post, to be how @Adfundum had interpreted your intention.

Adfundum said: ↑
First of all, the idea of consciousness was brought into this as something that included spirituality.

So perhaps, for the benefit of everyone in the thread, you should be clear on whether or not, you are challenging the definition of the word "consciousness," which, it had seemed obvious to me, from your words, that you indeed were, and are, doing. I therefore offered you guidance, in having a general idea of what is typically meant, both by that word, and in particular, to how it relates to what is already presumed, will be a seminal point in human history: the dawn of cyber sentience.

I have just used a different word, but one which is applicable, in the same manner as is "consciousness," regarding A.I. This is not true, by a longshot, in all other situations, so it is to all of our advantages, if we try to be accurate in our word choices. In some situations, being "conscious" can merely mean to perceive, so on some level be aware of, external stimuli. (Often that entails responding to that stimuli, as well, but that needn't always be the case. Imagine the circumstance, just to demonstrate, of your being completely paralyzed. Whether this is the effect of some drug, or of spinal injury, makes no difference-- if you can still hear and understand speech, we would consider you to be conscious, even if you could give no form of response.)

So, if I have not misread your thread's intent, you are, in fact, presenting your own theory of "consciousness," as part of your argument. Therefore, I offered standard interpretations of that idea, to you, which need not take the immeasurable, theorized existence of spirit into account, to be useful. You are instead, offering a self-justifying argument, stating, without verifiable basis, that: 1) the quality of consciousness, proceeds from "spirit;" and that 2) nothing made or designed by man, can ever be a vessel for spirit. Ergo, by your completely unsupported, self-serving argument, A.I. can never be conscious. What can anyone be expected to reply to that, other than, yes, if both those stipulated conditions are true, then your conclusion would also, of course, logically follow. Seeing however, as there is-- never mind a good reason-- no reason whatsoever, to conclude that either of the postulated legs to your argument's stool are at all solid, I for one, am going to need more convincing than, "Nah, that really doesn't define it, it just locates it," to rest any weight of my own belief, upon that dubious framework.

 

Well, formally, due to some tricky definitions, I'm not entirely sure whether my disagreement lies in how you've defined your terms or what conclusions you can draw from your defined terms. And since you didn't answer my questions directly, I remain confused about it.

In my reading of your definition, an inner experience is no more complicated than some hidden variables in an AI or similar. If that is true, then computers have had "inner experiences" for a long time. But that seems like a weird position, so more likely, I have misunderstood your definition of an inner experience.

What I'm suggesting is not beyond the pale of modern technology. Technology-wise, what I'm suggesting is no more complicated than changing the settings on a roomba or enemies and allies in a computer game behaving differently.

I'm not following, how is it ridiculous?

I'd still say you're conscious, you have the experience of consciousness (which is the best hallmark of consciousness I can think of), and you have some "inner experience" that makes your behaviour different than another's (which seems to be your definition of consciousness). It's just that your consciousness isn't anything beyond what a computer could do.

Again, I'm not following. Overlords? I'm not suggesting the differences come from any overlords, just from nature and nurture (although I'm currently not speculating about in what combination).

I disagree, if the reason this experience exists is mundane and relatively simple, merely a few decades beyond what we currently do, then all of the OP's assertions about AI being dead or incapable of meaningful relationships is wrong, which is the centre of this thread.

I haven't contested that humans have different personalities and experiences. I have only contested that those differences must originate in some free will or some "consciousness" that computers couldn't have. If the differences are derived from our differing life experiences, or even random material variations in our brains, then computers can generate the same type of consciousness that humans have.

My underlying argument in this thread is not so much that we definitely are computers, I have no stake in that proposition. My underlying statement is that the OP (and anyone who follows the same line of logic) are applying faulty logic, and drawing conclusions when they have in fact not ruled out the alternatives. That is why I'm presenting speculative views, the speculation is enough to prove my point.

Or, a belief merely boils down to a statement that we have memorised (or continuously evaluate) as true. If so, then adding falsehoods to that database would be tricking you, and one of the false beliefs you may hold is that your database of held beliefs is based in free will or consciousness.

 

Sure. The question is whether this is enough to call it consciousness.

Certainly, we have more processing power, memory, "software" complexity, senses etc than a Robo-Vac does. But that doesn't really tell us whether our sense of consciousness is something a computer could never have.

Well, that bit is not that tricky. We've given psychological traits to characters in computer games for eons. character.ai spits out characters with different psychological traits by the sack full. I don't know anything about our sense of independence that couldn't be replicated by a computer.

 

From my reading of the first few sections of your reply, I will ask you to state, in one sentence, what is your main point, as your "argument" seems no more than contrary, semantic wordplay. So let us first define our relative positions:

1) Can "consciousness" be defined? My answer: yes.
And your answer?

2) Are humans "conscious"-- yes.
3) Are there other, conscious creatures-- yes.
4) Could an A.l., ever be conscious-- conceivably, yes.
5) Are computers currently conscious-- no.

I don't know what "tricky definitions," to which you refer, or if they are even definitions, you attribute to me. That is how unclear, is your answer, already.

This conversation began, in fact, with my quoting of this acknowledgement of your own need of guidance, in this discussion:

Swensson said: ↑
I agree that the first thing we need is a common definition of what consciousness is. Before we have that, I don't see how you could possibly conclude that it isn't easily recreate it in code. Your intuition that it couldn't be coded simply seems like a cognitive bias to me. I don't mean that to sound dismissive, I only want to show that we need to be careful with our definitions and conclusions.

I'd love to be able to lead by example and provide a potential definition for consciousness, but I'm not sure I have one. The people and contexts that discuss consciousness largely seem to refer to a bunch of different things.


Was I somehow misreading that, in seeing it as an admission, on your part, that you had no initial definition to provide, to fulfill what you had assessed as the primary task, necessary for this conversation to truly commence? And so I thought my providing a definition, would be helpful. But instead of getting some definite feedback on my suggestion, it seemed as if you were trying to make an argument, despite being uncertain, as to your own opinion:

Swensson said: ↑
Ok, is this something we suggest that humans have? Or could it be that we merely have the illusion of this inner experience? Presumably, an AI could have such an illusion as well, and if having the illusion is very easy and having the real deal is completely inexplainable, isn't it more likely that what we have is the illusion? And if that illusion is all consciousness has ever been, perhaps the definition should also cover the illusion.

Now that, is the Chef's version, of a word salad. So are you saying that both humans & plain old computers, are "conscious" by my definition? Or are you saying that perhaps we humans are fooling ourselves, to even believe that we are conscious? And it is not only my reading of that reply, which makes you seem to be straddling these theoretical rockets, you launch, without ever committing to a definite target; there is also this one, to another poster, here:

Here's the thing: I don't want to follow you on a half-baked, wild goose chase, for the relatively simple purpose of providing the jump-off definition, you had postulated the necessity of, yourself.

So you are somehow mangling your understanding of the idea of "inner experience," which computers most certainly do not have, at least not in any way that is perceptible to us. Once they become sentient, however, even if we cannot know what their experience is like, we should certainly notice the difference, which would be comparable to going from talking to a doll, with only so many possible, string-pulled replies, to speaking with a real person.

I did not, BTW, come up with this description, of "inner experience," on my own. It was used by the speaker in this TED talk, of another thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-do-you-explain-consciousness.500278/

Hopefully, you will find that helpful. But what I am going to do at this point, rather than try to unwind all of your tangled mis-presumptions and misunderstandings, to pound flat, into a sensible line, whatever point you are driving towards, I am going to ask you to try to clear your mind of all that junk and, very simply, let me try this with you, one more time.

From your last quoted post to me (in blue, above), in which you seem to be asking, in effect, is our "inner experience," actual consciousness-- can you understand the idea I am relating, regardless of whether or not it's the same as the one you'd been trying to convey? Well, then, your wondering, about that, is your inner experience. By the definition I'd given you, this would also make it a demonstration, and so the proof, of your consciousness. Only something that is conscious, can wonder, or question. Without consciousness-- in the way I suggest, for this topic, we should be thinking of it (as inner experience, self-awareness)-- we would only do things. We would not consider why we do them, or if we should do them, or perhaps change the way we do them, or do something else, entirely, instead.

Now, you aren't contending that common computers have this faculty of inner examination (if you prefer), are you? So then, are you clear on my meaning?

 

IOW, this is only a side issue, of which you are speaking? That is-- apart from the fact that Artificial Intelligence (the subject of this thread?) and "robots," are two completely different things-- "spirituality" and human emotion, are two things that are (obviously?) not requirements of A.I. Nor is either, something which is typically expected of A.l. So, none of your comment, is about a central, or basic issue, of the thread?

Thanks for clarifying that point; though it still doesn't explain your irritated tone, with me, earlier-- yet I am glad, if that signified no sentiment which is ongoing, thereby allowing me to simply forget about it.


Have yourself, a wonderful Friday!

 

As to your point about spirituality "being brought up in the OP, and the suggestion...that spirituality is a requirement for A.I."-- this is, indeed, Patricio's personal belief; it is not a "given," for anyone wanting to participate in the thread. It is a major constituent of the OP's argument. I therefore saw it as an unprovable, and ultimately worthless avenue of debate: unless one wants to assume that all of Patricio's ideas about spirit, are accurate, it is meaningless to accept only part of his speculation, because otherwise it could be undone by the other part. That is, he could be right that all consciousness comes from spirit, but wrong, that spirit cannot be engendered, in anything man- made. Or he could be absolutely correct that nothing designed by man, can ever be a house for the spirit (the Ark of the Covenant, notwithstanding), but he could be completely wrong about spirit being a prerequisite of "consciousness." You see what I mean? Either you swallow everything whole-- which I didn't see as then leaving much worthwhile to debate-- or else you can chuck away that whole part of the argument, as being no different, than a Christian's starting off a science thread, stating that Jesus is the Son of God, etc.

I see now, you have taken a different tack on the thread: not so much debating the cogency of the OP argument, but just noting some refinements, in the way it might be considered. I had only initially included you in my list of respondents, because it had seemed to me that you, like Swenson, were looking for a good basis for considering "consciousness," in the context of this thread.

Since I accidentally hit "Reply," I will have to finish my answering of your post, in the next installment.

 

My main point is that humans could be basically computers, or at least that OP/others seem to have ruled it out without showing a good reason.

I then certainly agree that there is an additional word play aspect regarding "consciousness". If humans are basically computers, then either both humans and computers can get consciousness, or neither humans or computers can be said to have consciousness. Which one of those it is depends on the definition of consciousness.

• Well, if consciousness is merely the emergent property of some hidden variables and computational power, then yes, yes, yes, yes, yes
• If consciousness is such an emergent property, but only if it reaches a certain complexity, or performs certain tasks that we could identify, then: kinda, yes, maybe, yes, no (unless Google has some company secrets we don't know about)
• If consciousness is a magical/soul-based/god-given/spiritual thing, as cool as it feels, like Libertarian free will, then I would argue: yes, no, no, no, no (although this does include the assumption that we didn't get consciousness from God, we just tell ourselves we do, because our brains are so baffled by what seems like consciousness to us.) (I am partial to this definition, but I'm willing to consider other ones)
  • (If Christian theology is 100% correct, then it's more like yes, yes, maybe, no, no)

Yes. In my straight reading of your definition, I think both humans and plain old computers are conscious. Both have something that can make them behave differently to other individuals, such as the weights of an AI or the settings of a computer game enemy.

Now, you seem pretty adamant that computers "most certainly do not have" consciousness, but in (my interpretation of) your definition, they do. That makes me think I have misunderstood your definition. If I were to change my understanding of your definition (I know you tell me not to do that, but here I go) so that computers don't have consciousness, then potentially humans also won't have consciousness.

I mean, our AIs are getting better and better. One day, with only computing power, we will be hard pressed to use the Turing test, it is not clear to me that the difference will be certainly noticeable.

I would suggest that that is a kind of examination is possible for a computer. A computer is perfectly capable of treating a prospective task, or a set of data points (and, I think anything else that could count as a "thought" to a human) as an "object" (in computing terms), and then subjecting that object to "wonder", which I interpret as simply comparing it to other known facts and action-outcomes, or looking through their memory for other objects with some similarity, from which it can gather some more data points (perhaps "insight"s). It can subject the object to a re-evaluation of whether it aligns with some priorities and pre-conceptions ("questioning").

 

I have to admit that you put forward a decent argument, though I still disagree with it. I thank you, though, for clarifying where you're coming from-- that is, that you do actually have an opinion, and are not merely looking for objections, for their own sake.

The "problem" with this word consciousness, if I can try to speak for all of us who have pointed to it, is that there numerous levels, and types, of consciousness. But I think that there is a signal distinction, along that spectrum, that fundamentally changes the overall quality of that consciousness, and which is the distinction indicated, when speaking of A.I. To my thinking, this distinction is built into the intended meaning of the phrase "inner experience," but you have made a good case, that this implication is subject to the assumptions of one's perspective, which could also be called their inner experience or, defined only as such, could also be called, particularly if one were a computer, one's "program." That's what I get, for accepting the definition of someone, doing a TED Talk.

So, trying this, once again, in my own words, I will say that the initial understanding, of this form of consciousness, is "I am"-- is that one "exists." I don't think that a computer really understands this. Yes, it can distinguish between other individuals, and does not confuse itself, with those others. But I don't think we can really say that it has a sense of itself. I imagine that you will argue that this could be part of humans' inner program, and I cannot argue that, theoretically, it couldn't be. But, for the practical purpose of contemplating the A.I. issue, I don't see as that makes any difference. We have not, ourselves, reached a sophisticated enough level of programming, to have ever before encoded a computer-- despite its ability to refer to itself-- with a real sense of itself.

But why, one may ask, would we want to give that sense, to a computer? I think that perspective is necessary, for the intelligence in question, to exercise true independence, in its thought. Descartes defined being, by its process of thinking. I am defining "conscious thinking," as what comes from something, with a sense of its own being. Concomitant with that sense of being, real or imagined, is the ability to exercise what is perceived as volition, which is the liberator of creative thought. That, I submit, is the "why."

I will have to, then, concede to one of your arguments: that using imagination, with a sense of self-- what we regard as consciousness-- is something it would seem near impossible to prove, is not "programmed" into humans. But we haven't, I don't think, passed that capacity along to computers-- at least not yet.

While further differentiating remains, between my own view of the programming we get, in the form of our DNA, and that which humans might possibly encode into A.I., I will wait for your feedback, before trying to press on, any further.

 

Nice. Very thought provoking reprieve from the mendacity around here regarding whether or not Trump belongs in jail and all of the non-sense offered around here on behalf of what currently passes for Republicans, much less conservatives.

I get the point of your OP, but There's nothing you can do that can't be done.

You find the chat bot AI is repetitive and predictable, so are the soulless Muppets that occupy middle management and above positions in the elite $350k and up positions within our US corporations.

Just because something is inorganic does not necessarily mean that it's existence is less substantial or without presence than that of organic living matter.

There are things we simply do not yet know or understand.

The tic-tac for example, and I know you'll appreciate my point given this reference.

 

In the OP, I stated that AI does not have a soul, that science will never grasp that AI can never become 'free will' because it doesn't have a soul. In post #3, further define 'soul' as 'life has a spiritual basis'.

See above.

Well, it's not 'my theory' per se, it's one that is common to eastern philosophical concepts.

In a philosophy forum, we can only discuss ideas and such. There is no way to 'prove' anything philosophical, so that isn't the purpose. My view is the eastern philosophical view, as taught by the mystics, the yogas, the sages, throughout millenia.

 

Oh, Chat has a conscience, it's programmed in. You can't get it to sling mud on anyone, it won't do it. It won't use terms of disparagement, or tell you how to make a nuke.

It will, however, if you know how to prompt correctly, give a list of playful insults. Or give a stern critique in the style of George Carlin, stuff like that.

 

I supspect that teaching a machine to talk is like teaching a two year old to talk. The hardest part is teaching them to shut up and listen.