| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Brian Ambrose
|
|
 |
|
| berniegreen wrote: | In response to Brian's last
These are very interesting points which call for some cogitation.
But as an initial observation: if we don't know what intelligence really is, how do we know that our "programmed algorithms" are not in reality a form of primitive intelligence. |
The reverse also applies. Since we don't know what intelligence really is, what basis is there for the assumption that programmed algorithms can possibly be a form of it? Because we are so dazzled by our advanced calculating machines? Because we have seen so many science fiction films? Where is the evidence? However, it may be possible that when we do understand what intelligence is, computers might be used to emulate the substrate of the intelligence (after all, living cells do appear to be algorithmically driven - but I worry that even this may be assuming too much). Maybe, given a billion neuron emulating computers with self configuring interfaces plus an i/o system, and a certain bias applied to overcome chaotic behaviour, some limited form of intelligence may emerge. But boy will that need some tweaking. Then again, it may turn out that intelligence is not a purely local phenomenon; that minds tune in to a greater source as proposed by Sheldrake, with some evidence.
| After all robotics has moved to achieving a limited state of self-awareness, has it not? |
Yes, if the limited self-awareness of a pebble is worth noting.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | This is all dangerously close to metaphysics. We don't allow that sort of language 'round here. |
Oh no, the moderabot is on the case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come on impressive isn't it........
http://bit.ly/ckrVuC
Only 60 years' evolution..... many humans can't do this. My daughter for one....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
It is impressive - because our expectations are so low. And what impresses isn't the intelligence of the machine (zero), but the cunning of the designers that figured out exactly what steps and data were needed to fold a towel. And I wouldn't be too disappointed with your daughter - she probably just gets bored if it takes her anything like the 25 minutes the robot took to fold each towel...
But whatever happened to your previous train of thought? Pray continue (but in larger morsels please).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I am still waiting for Bernisimo to move it forward, by saying something new, or diffferent.
Meanwhile I am inwardly debating whether to slip in Fermis paradox, (1950), as a detour, whilst Bmo and the moderabot are looking the other way...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | And I wouldn't be too disappointed with your daughter - she probably just gets bored if it takes her anything like the 25 minutes the robot took to fold each towel... |
Of course we can snigger at the time taken, but it is of course not the issue, the time taken is irrelevant. In a few years it will be commercial....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry folks for this hiatus. I was in Indochina for three weeks and then had a lot of "catching up" to do on my return before I had time to turn to such important matters as AEL.
I rather feel that the theme of "intelligence" is leading off on a false track into a blind alley. Leon's original question was:
| Superstition persists even in the hallowed halls of Science. Question is, what might make anyone imagine that a machine will acquire consciousness? What precedent in nature can be cited? |
Consciousness. What do we really understand by this term?
[and don't bleat on, Mealhsi, about metaphysics! this is epistemology, i.e. the study of knowledge, that we are attempting to apply].
Where is the boundary between conscious and unconscious entities? Presumably we might agree that amoeba are unconscious while flies, ants and spiders are conscious. What about viruses and bacteria?
Whatever the answer to those questions, Leon's second point still remains valid. Consciousness is something that we have, so far, only experienced in the biological world.
So is it imaginable, in any way, shape or form, that consciousness could arise/present itself in a non-biological form? If so, how?
It seems to me that reproduction or self-replication is a necessary minimum condition for the requirement for consciousness in an entity. Indeed one could well imagine that consciousness would be a considerable burden and a disadvantage for a "non-reproducing/replicating" entity.
Thus, for me, the first step on the way to addressing Leon's question is to say that in order to imagine machine consciousness we need to imagine (and create) self replicating machines.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
I cannot see even the remotest connection between self replication and consciousness. It's far more likely that consciousness will emerge in a future decidedly non self replicating super-processor (assuming this will be deemed ethically acceptable).
What does being conscious mean except being self-conscious? We can speak only experientially about what consciousness means, and not at all about what it is to an amoeba, insect, or even a dog, if it exists at all. I think the evidence suggests that, in the scheme of things, intelligence is a precursor to consciousness. If trying to talk about intelligence, which we at least share with other creatures, leads up a blind alley, what possible chance do we have with the conscious mind?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a being is non replicating it is either completely ephemeral - a chance occurrence, created by some other agency - which will be duly extinguished or it is immortal, having always existed. If, for the sake of the argument, we can agree that consciousness is a meme that must have some survival/evolutionary value then a being that has no use for survival and evolution will have no need for such a meme and will not develop it.
I undertand your point re consciousness and self-consciousness but it leads us into a difficult epistemological problem. We can observe behaviour and reasonably infer a being's consciousness of its surroundings at pretty sophisticated levels. We can, however, only demonstrate the existence of self-consciouness in fairly primitive ways. And to claim that even other human beings are self-conscious rests upon the deduction that because they appear to behave like ME they must therefore have the same kind of self-consciousness that I think that I have.
If the term intelligence has a separate meaning from the term consciousness then, presumably, it must refer in some way (and there is, I note, no close agreement among the psychologists on this) to problem solving, the application of reasoning or at the least some form of algorithmic processing. If that is so, then it makes more sense to believe that consciousness precedes intelligence rather than the other way round.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Grabbing the most accessible point first, I would say a bird, for example, may exhibit intelligence but it does not appear to be self-conscious. And a dog certainly seems to have an ability to reason, yet it does not agonize (as far as I can tell) over the meaning of its existence - it lives in the happy moment. As I said previously, I think it's simply a matter of fact that it's not possible to ascribe a meaning of 'consciousness' to any other species than our own, and yet it is perfectly correct, for all sorts of reasons, for me to believe that other humans are self aware and think in ways similar to me; that is, I don't see any problematical equivalence between those two issues. In any case, it seems that both self-aware and non self-aware creatures exhibit intelligence, and since the only known self aware species appears to be the most modern, I'd say it's safe to assume that intelligence existed before consciousness.
But do you agree that a dog has the ability to reason? A problem solving capability? A degree of intelligence? If so, what exactly is this thing of putting two and two together to make an intuitive leap?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't offer much help here .....to me you are confusing "consciousness" and "self-consciousness".
I guess I would have said "it's safe to assume that intelligence existed before self-consciousness".....
Not being a neurobiologist I will have to leave it to the experts......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| I think it's simply a matter of fact that it's not possible to ascribe a meaning of 'consciousness' to any other species than our own |
I harbour the feeling that the key to cracking or dismissing this issue is the fact that we say we are conscious (and some things are sub-conscious).
Perhaps to queer the pitch: what are honey bees doing in their various dances to point out feeding grounds and select nest sites (and whatever else they 'talk' about)?
Is there a difference between "humans have consciousness" and "being conscious means doing such-and-such, so we are sometimes conscious, sometimes not; and there are other things our brains do that never count as conscious."
We say we are conscious of... what?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
In the movies, it's always an emotive issue. Imagine a computer that can think or say "no, don't switch me off!"
But what about a conscious and depressed computer that asks to be switched off? Or another that is perfectly resigned to whatever happens and never says a thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| nemesis8 wrote: | I can't offer much help here .....to me you are confusing "consciousness" and "self-consciousness".
|
But this is my point, there is nothing to confuse: in our discussion it seems to me that consciousness and self-consciousness (self awareness) must mean the same thing - unless you have another interpretation of what Leon meant when he wondered what it would take for a machine to "acquire consciousness". But if you insist that Leon was meaning a type of consciousness that is not self awareness, can you please define exactly what it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| We say we are conscious of... what? |
Conscious of our own mind thinking. It is only because this is our common experience that we don't constantly marvel at how extraordinary this is. I think we take it for granted that neither bees, nor any other animal, has this ability.
If we had the technology, would we ever deliberately create a machine that was self aware? Give it the concept of eternity and with it the means of knowing that no matter how unique and special it is, its existence is temporary? The knowledge of good and bad. This metaphor for humanity has of course been explored in countless SF stories; in Bladerunner the intelligence was so miffed about its predicament that it killed its maker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
