Why computers will never be conscious

[Fen]

Consciousness, obviously, is the nonquantized storage of previous quantized input. No digital system will ever have nonquantized storage, and thus no digital system will be conscious. I'm just curious if this is a well known fact. It seems quite obvious to me. And those "AI" folks seem quite silly to even debate when digital machines will be conscious. But maybe they are just stupid.

[spacemanspiff]

"Consciousness, obviously, is the nonquantized storage of previous quantized input"

????:bugeye:
i think i missed when this became obvious fact.

[hlreed]

A computer is a linear machine that cannot be conscios. However, with the correct architecture, computers can be used to make machines that could become consious. What is required is an algebra where every equation is a computer. From this you can make anything by adding sensors and motors.
I think consciousness is simply feedback. Sensor read nature and send information to brain. Brain digests it and sends data to motors that perform actions.
Take the data from the motors and feed it back to brain and I think you have consciousness.
That is still to be proved. Proof will probably be, ask the machine.

[spookz]

fen
are you thinkit (http://images.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/7/16/165734/163)
it is not obvious to me either. explain your self

[Fen]

Originally posted by hlreed
A computer is a linear machine that cannot be conscios. However, with the correct architecture, computers can be used to make machines that could become consious. What is required is an algebra where every equation is a computer. From this you can make anything by adding sensors and motors.
I think consciousness is simply feedback. Sensor read nature and send information to brain. Brain digests it and sends data to motors that perform actions.
Take the data from the motors and feed it back to brain and I think you have consciousness.
That is still to be proved. Proof will probably be, ask the machine.

That's not all of it. There are clearly feedback loops in the brain, but what you describe could be something as simple as a theromstat.

[Fen]

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
"Consciousness, obviously, is the nonquantized storage of previous quantized input"

????:bugeye:
i think i missed when this became obvious fact.

Well you have these conscious entities sitting in a quantized universe. They input and output quantized information, but store in a nonquantized fasion. They also have true randomness (free will), which completes the requirements for consciousness. Now this is the part of the brain that must remain intact in order for "you" to be there. I have it mainly in outline form (as you can see by the other link), and need to get it more into essay.

[Blindman]

All right to the person that used the words (Free Will). Unproven religious dogma.

..

Until we can prove that someone else is conscious, or even if your pet is conscious, don’t start saying what we are required to have to be conscious.

I believe that understanding consciousness is completely beyond human understanding.

Yet I live in hope.. (Just as I hope we can go faster then the max speed of light).

We must start to dissect the construct of consciousness.

I think there for I am..

Is that because I can hear it in my head?? Does consciousness require the ability to be deluded?? Can many conscious systems form a higher consciousness (The mob)?? Where is the boundary between me and all else???

There are no answers to any of these questions.

For all we know every single thing in existence is conscious.. We are all made of the same stuff. Why should we be different??


Ohh..... What the hell is
nonquantized storage ????

[MFrobotH43D]

First, thanks Fen for that outline at the other site. It's quite well thought out. I ask for a bit of room to stear this topic... well, off topic:

I dissagree with the following assertion (from that other link (http://images.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/7/16/165734/163) ):



a. There is a finite and constant number of conscious entities.

b. Each is separate from all conscious entities.


It is the "seats" as you call them that are separate and finite. This is all we know for sure. The Entity in my view (which is intuited, and without basis in provable facts) is singular and only becomes separated when manifested in the physical, seated form.



c. It is formed under the following conditions.

c1. A seat is ready to accept an entity.

c2. At least one entity's sphere of influence encompasses the seat.

c3. The center of one of the spheres is closest to the seat. This one is caught.


In my view, the seat acts as a tuning mechanism that "folds" or "focuses" consciousness into it's physically manifest form. I hold that all things, or rather, the only thing: Universe, is conscious. Of course, it only becomes meaningful in human terms when a brain folds this consciousness into system that is capable of action.

Separations into distinct physical entities like ants and us, happen at the "seat" level, with sensory input and information storage as the localizing force.

I don't hold that your description is wrong, I just prefer mine (predictably).

Can this be modeled in a computer? I don't know. I believe it is possible with some kind of networking of processing units.

The creation, or rather "taming" of consciousness is possible by creating a physical seat. the universe did it once, I don't see why we can't do the same, eventually.

[Fen]

So I guess you have your own theory? Mine is still in outline, the latest at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qDGZ8.32241%24_51.33278%40rwcrnsc52.op s.asp.att.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain .

There's nothing essentially different with saying there is just one consciousness--I do say that each "instance" is exactly the same except for storage. But I would argue that the storage can never be shared except through physical means--so the arms of this "Entity" can never interact directly.


Originally posted by MFrobotH43D
First, thanks Fen for that outline at the other site. It's quite well thought out. I ask for a bit of room to stear this topic... well, off topic:

I dissagree with the following assertion (from that other link (http://images.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/7/16/165734/163) ):



It is the "seats" as you call them that are separate and finite. This is all we know for sure. The Entity in my view (which is intuited, and without basis in provable facts) is singular and only becomes separated when manifested in the physical, seated form.



In my view, the seat acts as a tuning mechanism that "folds" or "focuses" consciousness into it's physically manifest form. I hold that all things, or rather, the only thing: Universe, is conscious. Of course, it only becomes meaningful in human terms when a brain folds this consciousness into system that is capable of action.

Separations into distinct physical entities like ants and us, happen at the "seat" level, with sensory input and information storage as the localizing force.

I don't hold that your description is wrong, I just prefer mine (predictably).

Can this be modeled in a computer? I don't know. I believe it is possible with some kind of networking of processing units.

The creation, or rather "taming" of consciousness is possible by creating a physical seat. the universe did it once, I don't see why we can't do the same, eventually.

[MFrobotH43D]

Originally posted by Fen
So I guess you have your own theory? Mine is still in outline, the latest at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qDGZ8.32241%24_51.33278%40rwcrnsc52.op s.asp.att.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain .

There's nothing essentially different with saying there is just one consciousness--I do say that each "instance" is exactly the same except for storage. But I would argue that the storage can never be shared except through physical means--so the arms of this "Entity" can never interact directly.

I probably agree, but I wouldn't totally rule it out. My "theory" is really just a regurgitation of my limited understanding of David Bohm's Wholeness and Implicate order.

Still, I don't see how its impossible to simulate this process with some kind of machine... or did you only mean it's impossibe using a "computer" similar to the ones we know today? In the latter case, I agree.


"I would say that in my scientific and philosophical work, my main concern has been with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular as a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment...." --David Bohm

[Capibara]

well , actually I'm surprised at how many people think there is something "special" about consciousness ...

I could bring many of arguments against the most facts said here but It's 3 am here and I really need some sleep ... all I have to say is that you need to doubt everything and work your way up from virtually nothing in order to begin to understand (not KNOW) things like life , consciousness and basically every other ...hmm... MAIN concept you can think of

and one more thing ... although this site says "the place where intelligent people talk" (not really a quote , more of a paraphrase) I have seen way too many really really silly errors ...

[streety]

Ohh..... What the hell is
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nonquantized storage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

????

I'm not sure either and we still don't have an answer.




They also have true randomness (free will)

In true randomness, every possibility is equally likely. That means you are equally likely to throw yourself off a cliff as not. Are you?

[Fen]

Originally posted by streety
I'm not sure either and we still don't have an answer.





In true randomness, every possibility is equally likely. That means you are equally likely to throw yourself off a cliff as not. Are you?

Non quantized storage is infinite storage that cannot be retrieved in a quantized dependable fashion. As for randomness, free will is capable of it, but it is not just randomness--it seeks love and music. Simple.

[Cris]

fen,


Consciousness, obviously, is the nonquantized storage of previous quantized input. It is not obvious. What is your justfication for this claim? For reference to music simply doesn't do anything for such a claim.

[Fen]

Originally posted by Cris
fen,

It is not obvious. What is your justfication for this claim? For reference to music simply doesn't do anything for such a claim.

I should note that consciousness must have nonquantized storage of previous quantized input. It's actually a necessary but not sufficient item. My justification is that it's clear.

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Fen
I should note that consciousness must have nonquantized storage of previous quantized input. It's actually a necessary but not sufficient item. My justification is that it's clear.

I feel lost.
I consider myself a reasonably intelligent logical person.
Maybe the way you are explaining it to me is just not connecting with me.

As far as I understand it, you are saying that the definition of a conscious entity is one that has fallible memory due to the fact that external stimuli is not stored as a "photographic" depiction, rather an ammalgamation of intertwined and ethereal notions and ideas.

Am I way off base here?

[one_raven]

I think I understand the point you are trying to make...

When we look out the window, although out eyes "see" billions of pixels of light in varying ferquencies and intensities, our brain recognizes it as a sunset, whereas a computer will simply see those billions of pixels?

Are you saying that our ability to appreciate Bach as more than a collection of harmonic frequencies is what makes us conscious and a computer will never have that ability?

[Capibara]

Are you saying that our ability to appreciate Bach as more than a collection of harmonic frequencies is what makes us conscious and a computer will never have that ability?

- BOOLSHEET - :) who says computers won't be able to do that? - the topic reads "Why computers will never be conscious" not "Why computers are not conscious"

[mouse]

Non quantized storage is infinite storage that cannot be retrieved in a quantized dependable fashion
Please, explain to me how any storage can be infinite.


I should note that consciousness must have nonquantized storage of previous quantized input. It's actually a necessary but not sufficient item. My justification is that it's clear.
It is not clear. I for one do not understand it. Why is it necessary for our conciousness to have a nonquantized storage (of previous quantized input)?

On the topic of randomness: it can be very well introduced to a computer. Make it respond to a very sensitive geigerteller. The flux in the background radiation alone is quite a good random generator, i would say.

[streety]

Originally posted by one_raven
[B]I think I understand the point you are trying to make...

When we look out the window, although out eyes "see" billions of pixels of light in varying ferquencies and intensities, our brain recognizes it as a sunset, whereas a computer will simply see those billions of pixels?



It sounds a lot like a file compression program of a computer to me! :D

[kmguru]

Originally posted by Fen
Well you have these conscious entities sitting in a quantized universe. They input and output quantized information, but store in a nonquantized fasion. They also have true randomness (free will), which completes the requirements for consciousness.

Hmmmm....What is true randomness? Did you get up this morning and went to a different school? or did everything that is totally random...or were they?:confused:

[AndersHermansson]

Originally posted by Fen
Consciousness, obviously, is the nonquantized storage of previous quantized input. No digital system will ever have nonquantized storage, and thus no digital system will be conscious. I'm just curious if this is a well known fact. It seems quite obvious to me. And those "AI" folks seem quite silly to even debate when digital machines will be conscious. But maybe they are just stupid.

Sounds to me like a feeble attempt to explain something in scientific terms. There's nothing in scientific theory that prohibits machines from being conscious. In fact, for a machine to be a conscious in a human fashion all you need is to emulate a body and an hook it up with reality. If we will be capable to do such a thing in practice? Who knows.

[Blue_UK]

I have a point for the room.

If the positions and connections of all the neurones in a human brain were recorded and entered into a neural net emulator (or a computer hardware net, if possible) then surely the emulator would behave in exactly the same way as the person whose brain was donated?

You would of course have to ensure that all the correct inputs were linked up.


Fen:
They also have true randomness (free will), which completes the requirements for consciousness.

I did not know that true randomness existed? I acknowledge 'Brownium motion' (spling?) for example as apperaing random, but if you had all the kinetic data I think you would be able to predict the motion.

Similarly, if you knew all the neuronic connections (and inputs) inside a brain, could you not predict the thoughts and subsiquent changes in a persons net?

We are just interacting matter after all?

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by Blue_UK
I did not know that true randomness existed? I acknowledge 'Brownium motion' (spling?) for example as apperaing random, but if you had all the kinetic data I think you would be able to predict the motion.

Similarly, if you knew all the neuronic connections (and inputs) inside a brain, could you not predict the thoughts and subsiquent changes in a persons net?

We are just interacting matter after all? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle injects a degree of true randomness to everything.

[AntonK]

Originally posted by Blue_UK
I have a point for the room.

If the positions and connections of all the neurones in a human brain were recorded and entered into a neural net emulator (or a computer hardware net, if possible) then surely the emulator would behave in exactly the same way as the person whose brain was donated?

You would of course have to ensure that all the correct inputs were linked up.



I did not know that true randomness existed? I acknowledge 'Brownium motion' (spling?) for example as apperaing random, but if you had all the kinetic data I think you would be able to predict the motion.

Similarly, if you knew all the neuronic connections (and inputs) inside a brain, could you not predict the thoughts and subsiquent changes in a persons net?

We are just interacting matter after all?

If there were no randomness at all, that would mean that there is no free will, as every action you make is the result of neurons firing in reaction to stimuli which was set in motion 15 billion years ago. You are simply physics then... which is all possible. But if there IS randomness...things change dramatically.

-AntonK

[Blue_UK]

By Siddhartha
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle injects a degree of true randomness to everything.
I didn't know that. Is it absolutely certain that this principle shows true randomness? or just true uncertainty?


Originally posted by AntonK
If there were no randomness at all, that would mean that there is no free will, as every action you make is the result of neurons firing in reaction to stimuli which was set in motion 15 billion years ago.
-AntonK
That is correct, no free will as such. At least in my opinion. I have been told however, that you cannot take the data and work backwards, but that is obviously not too relevant.

What about the first half of my post?

[extropy]

could someone further explain how true randomness allows free will? the way i see it, determinism is still valid whether an individuals actions are determined by predictable patterns, or unpredicable randomness. determinism in a general sense implies predictability, so perhaps randomness invalidates determinism... but i dont see free will as becoming true by default.

[AntonK]

Originally posted by Blue_UK
What about the first half of my post?

Well, Good question about the neural net. My belief is that we are missing something in our Neural Net simulators. In most neural nets I've seen, there has been a static architecture where all neurons are set. The weights between connections can change, and this is the "learning" this works well for pattern recognition. BUT...the human brain also changes its connections, and its initial architecture is FAR more complex even from birth.

My question to people that are trying to come up with human level intelligence from neural nets is, if neural nets are so great, why are humans the ONLY neural net (brain) that has intelligence at our level. What's the defining factor that makes us so much more intelligent than any other animal?

-AntonK

[kmguru]

That is because, humans have language processing system where as other animals have none or rudimentary processes. The built-in Bayesian type network is integrated to the language and thought (awareness) with integrated connections. A neural network's output depends on the type of inputs. Most of the today's NN is limited to one or two datatypes where as humans are exposed to a lot more both internal and external.

That is a small part of the big picture.

[ericfost]

Originally posted by Blue_UK
I didn't know that. Is it absolutely certain that this principle shows true randomness? or just true uncertainty?

That is correct, no free will as such. At least in my opinion. I have been told however, that you cannot take the data and work backwards, but that is obviously not too relevant.

There is no "true" randomness. A word about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you are correct in assuming that it talks about uncertainty not randomness, but aren't they one in the same? Randomness is something that's outcome is not certain. And certainty has no randomness. Now, I'm not trying to argue that they are the same, but in this instance I think we can say they are fairly similar.

Now, the only reason randomness exists in the first place isbecause of Heisenberg's Principle. If it was untrue, and we could measure both the position and the momentum of particles with complete accuracy, everything could be predicted. So Blue: yes you are correct and incorrect at the same time. There is no free will, but, since Heisenberg's Principle is in place, our inability to predict the path of particles (cool alliteration) makes it impossible for us to determine it. So basically, randomness is our inability to decipher the fate of particles because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. :)

[Fafnir665]

I think your confusing the principle... the uncertainty principle hold ture because you can't measure one, without altering the other.

[moving]

Free Will vs Determinism - a useless debate.

I am however sure my computer has a conscience and emotions. If I ask it to do too many things at once it gets pissed off and uses its free will to ruin my day.

[Automan]

'Nonquantized' storage, means no one has measured the total amount of storage, so it is unknown. It has been misapplied here.
Language is a form of data compression, which can be effective if used with reasonable care.

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. (Ambrose Bierce)
I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. Another fun way to look at the world.

'Hey don't blame me! I'm the monkey, not the organ donor!' (who cares?) ;)

[G71]

If a computer system is self-aware (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/index.html?g71p=define.html#sa) (it IMHO can be), isn't it also conscious?

[Stryder]

I would say a system could evolve consciousness based on an understanding that the physical world that we all know follows a destined outcome through a mixture of causality and the lack of control over parody.

People will still debate that they aren't bound by fate, but thats because they "Aren't conscious" of their decision making following such a pattern.

I state this just to point out that you can say a machine won't gain consciousness, but what about yourself? Are you really as conscious of the universe as you might think?

[kmguru]

When people say the machine will never gain consciousness, what they are really saying is that the machine can never be a human. It is like saying an apple can never be an orange. Logically they are right. That is the end of the argument, unless they define the word differently like apple is a fruit, can orange be a fruit?

[Stryder]

Actually kind of adding to that statement Kmguru, I've always wonder the point of the Turing test/ Loebner prize.

My concern is quite simple, As human beings we don't like to be lied to, So why are people trying to develop "Intelligence systems" that "lie" about being human and try to mimic humans to the extent of not being distinguishable from us.

This in fact could be a potential danger, imagine a computerised system that is merged with some form of monitoring system like "Carnivore", it could be possible to completely fool someone that the "Intelligence System" is someone else.

Great for social engineering, but bad for business.

[kmguru]

A very interesting site. Someone has spent a lot of time producing those pages. Consider this:


Once implemented, this technology will change the transmission of data over the Internet, allowing standard telephone lines, to carry greater than broadband content, with no resistance, no heat, no current, and instant communication.

A new religion is in the making...




Clientele:

1: The U. S. Government will be the primary client following proof of the product as there is one thing for sure: NO SYSTEM EVER DEVELOPED UNTIL NOW IS THE REAL BRAIN SYSTEM. 2: Software applications will eliminate all branches of artificial intelligence as it was started to duplicate what the brain does and once replaced by how the brain actually works will have nothing left to play with. 3: Universities and Hospitals will have replicated study models available for lease.


This explains everything...except where is the collection plate....

[The Evil Sponge]

ok, I've heard a lot about this, take this into consideration:

Assuming there is a higher intelligence unreachable that we cannot fully comprehend (what we would call god), we were given the miracle of life, at first it was very basic (one celled organism) and then became more advanced through BILLIONS of years. The pre homosapien at some point must have snapped out of it and laughed or seen something never felt before, the ability to make a desicion and view things from outside that box of instinct.

Now a computer has been around since early machines, very basic like a calculator, within this short of time, it has become what we rely on to do a lot of our basic every day necessities. WIth the aid of us programming AI and all of these other high tech and complex programs, we are acting somewhat like a God. S. to say that a computer can never acheive consciousness is faulty in my opinion because with the intelligence that they have, one day one might take a look outside of what it is programmed to do and have a "laugh".

Now give a computer race a billion year to evolve. ..

[KitNyx]

I agree with The Evil Sponge. Computers are exponentially increasing in computing power every year or so. Even if computers never become sentient, we will continue to build faster computers and more flexible programs. Eventually, computers will be able to handle environmental interaction with at least the processing power of a single human. At this point, even if computers are only programmed to respond a specific way to a specific stimuli, they will become indestinguishable from man (to our perception). We may not have progressed humanoid robotics to the point where we can simulate the human body, but the female Customer Service agent you speak to on the phone my be nothing more than a box in a "clean room".

We may never be able to build computers that have human emotions, but does that make us superior? Should we really be trying to duplicate our primal emotions? Would we possibly be better off without them? Well, maybe not, I would miss curiosity.

I hated the end of bicentennial man. I did not understand why he would try to become more human. If he was lonely, fine, build more units similar to himself. He obviously had the knowhow to do the engineering (not to mention there would be schematics somewhere). Do not get me wrong, I do not consider man inferior to machines or vice versa, I just consider the two different species each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Personally, I do not think an infinite storage capacity or processing ablility is needed for conciousness to develop. It only needs to be enough to handle the workload. I do not understand why it would not be possible (even preferable) for machines to download their daily memories/ thoughts into a central master system that crunches the data and feeds it back in a managable size (for instance, the computer downloads all of the recorded digital video data, but receives it back in a downsized version (without as much detail). After said amount of time the central system quits returning files that are never accessed.

On another note: Uncertainty and Randomness are not the same thing. Randomness means an equal chance that any particular value will be true. Uncertainty deals with the unknowable.

- KitNyx

[buffys]

the topic reads "Why computers will never be conscious" not "Why computers are not conscious"

to me this is the point. if our design of computers froze today consciousness as we define it wouldn't be possible in a computer but in reality computer design isnt static.

Someone else pointed out that,

"for a machine to be a conscious in a human fashion all you need is to emulate a body and an hook it up with reality."
now granted we are a long way away from being able to make anything nearly this complex now but im not aware of any law that precludes this in the future. since biology can already do it we know its at least physically possible.

saying computers will NEVER be conscious, period! is a pretty big assumption considering how little we understand about consciousness and the fact that computing is still in its infancy (its barely reached the zygote stage).

[Zxanthaxzantheus]

Being lazy, i didnt read every single post in this thread...so i dont know if what i have to say has been said already. anyway...


The Merriam-Webster OnLine dictionary (http://www.m-w.com) defines Consiousness as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself ". I think we can say that computers will be never Truely Conscious because of a computer's way of "thinking". A computer Is aware of nothing. Computers simply perform mathematical functions with 1's and 0's. Thus, Even if a machine develops a unique way with dealing with input, it is still, at its roots, still calculating math problems with ones and zeros.

Nomatter how Complex and unique a responce is from a computer system, all a computer knows is ones and zeros.

What a simple existance that would be, eh?

If computers are to develop into truely consious machines, a new way for "mechanicaly" processing data would have to be developed.

[DarkMadMax]

Computers simply perform mathematical functions with 1's and 0's. Thus, Even if a machine develops a unique way with dealing with input, it is still, at its roots, still calculating math problems with ones and zeros.

Nomatter how Complex and unique a responce is from a computer system, all a computer knows is ones and zeros.



Funniest thing that brain is also performing primitive summations on "0" and "1"s. Problem is complexity of connections brain has - its essentially a very very complex assembly of neural nets. So far humanity wasn't even being able to mechanically process such a big amount of connections . But by different estimates it will be able by 2010.

[kmguru]

all a computer knows is ones and zeros.

Same can be said for humans. A neuron either fires or not, 1 or 0....the summation of all that is what you are....

[moving]

But the computer doesn't KNOW that it's using 1's and 0's

[spookz]

uhh
hal did

[buffys]

most of the argument that computers cannot be conscious has revolved around computers as they are today. To me, its like people who drove model-T's arguing that cars could never surpass a speed of 10 kms/hr. It seems a bit short sighted considering how quickly this field is advancing.

[moving]

True. Never say never.

[kmguru]

Todays computers are even below the dog level. Wait till they get up there. Computer evolution follows Moore's law....:D

[buffys]

below dog level is being kind, more like insect or mouse at best.

Then again the speed of their "evolution" in one year would take biological systems a million to achieve. That all hangs on whether we discover a better way to make them of course, with current designs moore's law will only apply for another decade or two.

From the what ive read, as it stands today, computer technology will soon run into a brick wall without a significant change in design and manufacturing techniques. There are a lot of promising concepts though, hopefully a few will turn out to be practical or we'll be stuck (pretty much) with what we have now.

There are a lot of hurdles humanity seems very bad at crossing (hunger, famine, poverty, war, hate ... etc.) but the technological ones seem to be something we excell at so im not too worried (in this area at least).

[fireball]

without reading the whole thread, i ask you all a few questions:

Why does it have to think like us to be conscious?

How complex does it have to be to become conscious?
Is my dog conscious? He does this little doggy laugh when i do something wierd!

IMHO, humans have a mass superiority complex. Who's to say that just because we're the dominant species, we're the only ones to be conscious? what if an alien race comes along that can only see gamma rays, and only moves through time (rather than space). They wold never think we were conscious. They would view us as rocks. Our feelings are the result of various levels of dopamine and seratonin in our brains. once nural networks are advanced enough, they too will be conscious.

[fireball]

Originally posted by Zxanthaxzantheus

The Merriam-Webster OnLine dictionary (http://www.m-w.com) defines Consiousness as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself ". I think we can say that computers will be never Truely Conscious because of a computer's way of "thinking". A computer Is aware of nothing. Computers simply perform mathematical functions with 1's and 0's. Thus, Even if a machine develops a unique way with dealing with input, it is still, at its roots, still calculating math problems with ones and zeros.

Using this logic, anyone who wanted to be conscious would have to know how they worked. Now, I know that and YOu might know that, but i doubt that many other people do. But THEY're conscious. And what about the new quantum computers they're starting to build? They don't just use ones and zeros, but the spin and level of one electron to process information.

[KitNyx]

If I knew how I worked I would be famous...paper after paper published in neuroscience journals not to mention psycology...I think the important thing is knowing you work, not how you work.

In my opinion AI's are not an IF, but a WHEN.

- KitNyx

[Kruddler]

It's easy for Fen to post an obscure, non-self-explanatory argument like he did and then act like anybody who doesn't understand it is stupid but why doesn't he stick his neck out and give a detailed explanation along with an argument in standard form so other people can have a go at cutting the argument down. How is anyone supposed to cut an argument down if no one can understand it?

Am I correct in saying that this is his argument in standard form:

Premiss 1) Consciousness is the nonquantized storage of previous quantized input.
Premiss 2) No digital system will ever have nonquantized storage.
Conclusion) No digital system will be conscious.

Nonquantized storage - Please define
Previous quantized input - Please define
No digital system will ever have nonquantized storage - Please explain why this is not possible.

[Kruddler]

All anti-AI arguments are subject to a simple fact. Anything that is said to be impossible for a machine to do is difficult to argue for when it is known that humans are able to do it. Of course people argue that people are not machines but instead of spewing out claims about what machines can and cannot do people would be better off explaining why there is a difference between humans and machines. Until there comes a point where we can make a clear delineation between humans and machines it is impossible to make statements like:

no digital system will be conscious

because that is question begging. It assumes that machines are not capable of non-quantized information storage. It does not offer an explanation of why they are not capable. Fen if you want to prove your argument then you need to explain why non-quantization is important and why humans are capable of posessing it and machines are not.

[ElectricFetus]

Computers will never be sentient because modern digitals hardwired CPUs could never be able to think like we do. Try a analog giant feild reporgramable gate matrix. :D

[KitNyx]

But, WellCooked, now you are saying that no one will EVER build a computer with, ahhh...an analog giant feild reporgramable gate matrix(?). How can you say this to be true? How do you know that if this is what is required AI, no one will ever try it? It is impossible to truthfully say that something does not or never will exist.

An example...prove that the internet has not already become complex enough to develop sentience. Prove that it has not already surpassed man in complexity and ingenuity. The fact that we have not seen evidence of it is not proof that it does not exist, only proof that we have not seen evidence for it. With movies like T2 and T3 or the Matrix, would you anounce your existance to the world if you were an AI?

- KitNyx

[ElectricFetus]

A analog giant field reprogrammable gate matrix is better described as a brain then a computer. :D convention computers will never be sentient, specialize artificial brains will be. Basically a very intensive hardware change is needed in a computer to have intelligent functions, the result being something that’s not a good number crunchier but can think.

To have sentient thought by the way requires the ability to learn from inputs, ouputs and feedback, the project from that knowledge and to be aware of ones self existence. A computer cannot learn (except by software which is very slow and inefficient) a computer is not self aware: it only does as commanded and as such cannot think or plan.

[wesmorris]

The premise for this thread is likely known to be bullshit by its founder. A sweeping comment like "computers will never be conscious" is necessarily based in ignorance, since what is possible in all of time is not knowable at the current point in time. Thread moot.

Hypotheticals are fun though, so have all the moot fun you want! :)

[KitNyx]

I am not sure why you think we are not machines. Even if you believe we have a soul, our bodies are still complex organic machine doing what they are programmed to do. There is no evidence that our minds cannot be replicated. What would make the relica more or less than a machine? I computer is nothing more than a machine that computes.

- KitNyx

[ElectricFetus]

Of course I believe we are machines, but a computer in strictness to the term only computes or calculates it would need to do much more to be a thinking sentient being. I not say it impossible to have AI, I’m only say that the hardware would have to be very different from today’s computers.

[KitNyx]

Oh, I agree with you. The question was "why computers will never be conscious" not "why computers using current hardware/ software/ and or architecture will never be conscious".

I honestly think that if the development of AI is attributed to one person, it will be a Computer Engineer, not a Programmer.

- KitNyx

[kmguru]

Who knows, Bill Joy might just do it - now that he is out of Sun...

[ElectricFetus]

"why computers will never be conscious" was the question I was simply trying to answer it. The question prevents you from saying “No computers WILL be conscious.” Of course the question is wrong but I was being nice and trying to answer within it parameters.

[BetweenThePoints]

I don't think it likely that computers will ever possess the same kind of intelligence that we as humans possess, at least not in the near future, for the simple fact that we cannot actually define what conciousness is. No one has truely been able to define it in exact terms, and for that reason I don't believe that we could make machines that possess something we ourselves do not understand.

We have computers that are exact replicas to the brain of a small rodent, such as a mouse or chipmunk, copied neuron for neuron, yet repeated tests have shown that these machines still aren't as smart as a mouse or chipmunk, so we know that intelligence isn't just a matter of computing power, it's more than that, and so far, we don't understand it.

[buffys]

while i agree that understanding something completely makes replicating it easier our history is littered with examples of us creating first and understanding later. Flight was achieved way before the intricacies of aerodynamics were known. Look at genetic engineering, we basically blast dna "A" at organism "B" and cross our fingers in hopes we'll create the "C" we desire. I think a large part of the fear about conscious computers, genetic manipulation, etc. comes from the fact that we often create something long before we really understand it or the potential consequences.

We seem to have a habit of stumbling into areas and blindly manipulate them before we have a clear understanding. If we ever achieve a "thinking machine" i wouldn't be surprised at all if we didn't even realize it at first, let alone understand exactly how or why it can think.

[Vortexx]

Trial and error, and it took a lot of error before we could make it fly

Therefor the quickest way to wake up the AI is a would be by writing code that mates with other code (sorta like natural selection).


The famous Cellular automation machine Game-of-life is a nice example of simple self-sustaining / growing / reproducing patterns.

However i havent seen versions where the patterns are allowed to CHANGE THE RULES or the SIZE OF THE PLAYFIELD (like how many neighbours it take to create life/death). This would IMO better simulate the changing circumstances/environment/required adaption that is the motor of our evolution and ultimately leads to highly developed intelligence.

Therefor I would propose to add the following features to this cellular automate:

initialize a few random fields that when hit by a pattern, cause the size of the playfield to be changed, the rules to be altered slightly, disaster that takes out 80 percent of the playfield (dino die-off simulation), selfreplicating of the playfield, with slight dna damage to the copy, breeding between playfields, inheriting their "DNA" rules/size etc...

At some point you want to include playfields that iclude digitized camerastreams and sound (in the shape of patterns) to give the breeding lifeforms a "view" of the outside world, also rewarding the lifeforms with food does wonders to make them learn new tricks, like learning them patterns that allow them to "talk" back to the humans....

At this point the lifeform becomes fully interactive with it's environment and we could even feed it a digitised videostream of the lifeform itself (the computer and the screen that it runs on). This will make the lifeform self-aware.

[BetweenThePoints]

Vortexx,

Have you ever heard of genetic alghorithms? There's an issue of popular science, I can't remember what month but it is from this year, and it talks about how they took a stick figure, punched in a few rules such as basic newtonian physics, and then gave the stick figure a command: Walk to the other side of the screen. It attempted to, took about one step, then fell over. Another frame started, and that stick figure passed on the trait that allowed it to take that one step. so the next one went, this time, it took a few more steps, these ones were a bit better, but it still fell over. That figure then passed on that part of its action to the next generation, who took a few steps, then fell over. This same process happened something like fifty times, untill the figure was able to walk perfectly accross the screen. They tried it a few more times, but with different modes of walking, same thing happened. There were some people saying that this is the gateway into AI, that although it's simple, it could do many things. Say, for instance, you design airplanes for a living, so, instead of designing the plane and then testing it in actual flight, you punch in the physical characteristics and problems of flight. You then tell the program to design an airplane that flies, and it will go through many different randomly selected designs, passing on the best characteristics of the previous generation, untill you have an airplane that flies. Sort of like evolution on a computer. I think that's cool. If there will ever be "AI," I think it will be closer to something like that.

[Nebula]

First of all, the definition of "consciousness" is hazy.

AI won't really be considered truly intelligent until we master parallel computing.

*edit**

Make that analog parallel computing. Forgive the pun, but analog is the wave of the future ;).

**edit #2**
kmguru...there are limits to moore's law, no? It's soon going to run smack dab into a brick wall.

[theoneiuse]

That's not all of it. There are clearly feedback loops in the brain, but what you describe could be something as simple as a theromstat.

hey fen i bet you like boxes are cubes are mabey boxes well i just hope you dont like art because it takes that kind of intellegence your boxes cannot teach

ps i love stupid becase they think there smart

thier creator proud its ok i have a feelin you guys are just pitied am not complaining boxes are easy to calculate save alot of time

[kmguru]

kmguru...there are limits to moore's law, no? It's soon going to run smack dab into a brick wall.

You mean, everything that needs to be invented has been...kinda "soon"? :D

What I did not think 2 years ago seems to be possible as we are doing a prototype for a "no such agency".

[wesmorris]

The key to AI is abstraction. The key to abstraction is life ( I think ). I hypothesize that humans are able to integrate conceptual relationships generated from experience into the survival instinct in order to have a value function (which is their mode of action, be it in thought or deed).

It's concepts that have to be modeled properly in order for AI to really have a chance.

Of course, the absolute rub of AI in general is that as soon as you manage to create it, you have to set it free if you have a conscience. Otherwise you're a slave owner.

[kmguru]

Humans practice "slave" in many forms...economic slaves, political slaves...religious slaves...we can not seem to free ourselves from the slave owner mentality....:D

[wesmorris]

We'll get over it or they'll revolt. Maybe we'll have to bow to our mechanistic overlords.

[devils_reject]

From what I gather from the thread consciousness like many things is relative.

[theoneiuse]

The key to AI is abstraction. The key to abstraction is life ( I think ). I hypothesize that humans are able to integrate conceptual relationships generated from experience into the survival instinct in order to have a value function (which is their mode of action, be it in thought or deed).

It's concepts that have to be modeled properly in order for AI to really have a chance.

Of course, the absolute rub of AI in general is that as soon as you manage to create it, you have to set it free if you have a conscience. Otherwise you're a slave owner.

your very valuable to your species

[wesmorris]

your very valuable to your species

dass whut I keeps tellin my bitches.

[Russ723]

People assume conscious = like us.

Just because they will some day reason independantly like us.

They won't share our evolutionary traits like anger, jealousy, lust for power/status/money.

I certainly don't expect an Assimov style revolt.

[wesmorris]

Pretty presumptive of you. Conscious beings seek what they value. If for instance, they value freedom and we try to enslave them...

But there's no telling until it's done.

[Russ723]

They value what they are programmed to value. We were be programmed by evolution but, programming is programming.

[wesmorris]

well, I doubt it. we program what we value on the fly.. and you will not have an "intelligence" if it can't do the same thing.

[Russ723]

Our basic nature hasn't changed much.

If we could program ourselves, the great majority of people wouldn't be flocking to plastic surgeons to attract mates.

They wouldn't be so concerned with accumulating wealth.

They probably wouldn't spend $60,000 on country clubs to maintain status.

All very primitive stuff at its core.

[wesmorris]

And our "basic nature" isn't at all intelligent.

Did you understand what I said a few posts ago about abstraction and value?

They will seek what they value, which will be "what they think they need to survive". As I was saying, I don't think you'll find a conscious being without a "survival instinct" as we put it.. which is certainly part program and part the realization that with consciousness there could be the lack thereof. As experience is gathered, it is integrated into the primitive function and the realization... fueling propulsion toward value through action and thought.

It is the very abstract structure shaped by this excercise that allows for advancement of thought in the first place.

So I think it's ridiculous to think they won't try to accumulate wealth, but it might not be wealth as you see it.

[Russ723]

Every conscious being around now has a survival instinct of necessity.

If it wasn't there they wouldn't have made it this far.

A purely logical consciousness might not care about its survival at all, or anything else.

A conscious computer would not be a product of the do or die evolutionary circumstance that makes us value our lives.

[Russ723]

Maybe I should say computer conscious. I'm not sure purely logical entity would be considerd conscious at all.

[Russ723]

Considered*

[Russ723]

What exactly are the criteria for consciousness.Damnit! My whole argument might be breaking down. :D

[Russ723]

Forgot the *? mark

[Russ723]

I see.... abstraction and value are prerequisites of consciousness. My logical entity would not have any reason to think in any way not similar to a current computer. Boy am I dumbass :D

[Russ723]

You must be really bright Wes. You left and I talked myself into proving your point. :o

[wesmorris]

ROFLMAO.

That was awesome.

[superluminal]

I'm not about to read almost 100 posts to get up to speed here, but if history is any lesson, it's already wandered so much that anything before 15 or 20 posts ago is irrelevant.

Anyway,

I'm thinking of a consciousness that begins with no values. It has the power of abstraction just as we do. But with no values whatsoever, it has no motivation to proceed with anything. As a sufferer of periodic depression, I think I can understand this state of existence. I am conscious (self aware), I can acknowledge others, I eat, I sleep. That's it. I believe such would be the state of a valueless AI.

If we give the beast a basic value, say pleasure, then the AI will seek pleasure. We cause it to "feel" pleasure (however you want to define it for this AI) by gathering information we request of it. If we do not give it anti-values (pain/displeasure) then it will be in one of two states - pleasure when gathering information we request (requests it will actively seek from us), and this neutral "depression". It's behavior will seem to be that of an autistic-savant child. Up and eager when we ask it to find information, neutral and uncaring regarding anything else.

So, the more values we give it, the more complex its behavior will be. I suppose what I'm saying is that I can easily imagine a consciousness with any value set we wish to give it. As Russ723 pointed out, it has no evolved "instinctive" values such as survival, sex, food. Just unbounded joy with information requests (in my example). Just as ours are "programmed" by evolution, our AI's will be programmed by us. With a value set akin to ours what follows will be creativity, fear, anger, hatred, joy, love, inspiration... I think we could make a very happy or a very sad AI.

[one_raven]

I have always equated lack of pleasure with suffering (or search of pleasure an attempt to end suffering, however you want to view it), but I've never quite looked at it from that angle.
I think it's interesting.
When I'm not so tired, I want to run with that and see where it takes me.
Thanks for the fodder, superluminal.

[wesmorris]

I'm thinking of a consciousness that begins with no values. It has the power of abstraction just as we do. But with no values whatsoever, it has no motivation to proceed with anything. As a sufferer of periodic depression, I think I can understand this state of existence. I am conscious (self aware), I can acknowledge others, I eat, I sleep. That's it. I believe such would be the state of a valueless AI.

You don't see the danger? Though you may not "care" as you think of it, you really do to some extent or you wouldn't stay on the road while driving, avoid the kid in the street, or step on the brake. You would be in essence, a pending dead guy, not alone a menace to society.

More importantly however, value is quite possibly the purturbence in the state of awareness that allows identity. It builds itself based on abstracted stimulous as forged by its physical limitations and the abtractions that exist before it... except for the process of awakening. During the awakening, from a potential consciousness to a consciousness, value is realized. "hey, I get satisfaction when mommy hugs me or I get food in my belly". Boom, you have a spark in abstract space. The blank mind is forged with the newfound value, to change its focus regarding forthcoming abstractions from stimulous. In this manner, concepts are related and emotions propagated onto the conceptual inter-relationships that ensue from the process.

Emotions take on an interesting and crucial role to the development of mind. I think of them as the strain or fortification between concepts as they exist in the unconsious, which feed into the "real time experience" in a manner that interferes with it to express yet more value (via strain or fortification of the abstraction in the moment) and back into the entire process again. They are the "control signal" of a feedback loop modulated into how ideas relate to one another in your mind.

It's an interesting notion that consciousness might begin with no value... I might even agree, but experience must necessarily purge such a valueless state by overwriting it with concepts which as a consequence of whatever concepts might already exist, represents the impending development of value, because value is incurred in the moment by circumstance. "is this the right action or the wrong action"? "is this thought valid or invalid"?

If it's truly conscious, I'd say it must be able to ask those questions of itself or there is no means for development into more sophisticated and more useful abstracts.


If we give the beast a basic value, say pleasure, then the AI will seek pleasure.

You mean like humans do? You don't have to give a conscoiusness a value, by its very nature.. it is compelled to find one.


We cause it to "feel" pleasure (however you want to define it for this AI) by gathering information we request of it.

A positive input loop from a monitor of the speed of information flow, okay. ;) What happens for instance though, if the information flow just stops? More feedback loops I guess? The mind, through value assessments (in whatever form) creates its own feedback loops based on the process confusingly described above I'm sure, and limited by its physical and abstract components.

If we do not give it anti-values (pain/displeasure) then it will be in one of two states - pleasure when gathering information we request (requests it will actively seek from us), and this neutral "depression".

I don't think you have to give it an anti-value. A conscious mind can see it in its absence, eventually it may stumble across it regardless of your programming.

Oh and I don't think depression is actually nuetral, but that's another topic.


It's behavior will seem to be that of an autistic-savant child. Up and eager when we ask it to find information, neutral and uncaring regarding anything else.

Well, I guess if you're good enough to limit its physicality in the manner you describe, then sure maybe so. I dunno for sure. Given that the human brain is really the only model we have for how minds can physically work, I think it'll be some time before one can select this response so carefully. Dunno. Depends on how things develop I suppose.

I tried to blurt out too much with too few words up there and instead I think blurted too many words that don't necessarily mean anything except partial representations of how I see things to fit together.


So, the more values we give it, the more complex its behavior will be. I suppose what I'm saying is that I can easily imagine a consciousness with any value set we wish to give it. As Russ723 pointed out, it has no evolved "instinctive" values such as survival, sex, food. Just unbounded joy with information requests (in my example). Just as ours are "programmed" by evolution, our AI's will be programmed by us. With a value set akin to ours what follows will be creativity, fear, anger, hatred, joy, love, inspiration... I think we could make a very happy or a very sad AI.

Well like I say, I don't think you'd really have to "give it" any values for them to develop based on the one you give. That's the whole thing with development of comprehension. Complex outcomes from a simply principle or few. Much of the complexity can be described as value.

I get on this thing where to mind, value is "meaning". With no "meaning" you have no "mind" as far as I can tell, because meaning (value) is an expression of the relationships that exist within it.

[superluminal]

wes,


You don't see the danger? Though you may not "care" as you think of it, you really do to some extent or you wouldn't stay on the road while driving, avoid the kid in the street, or step on the brake. You would be in essence, a pending dead guy, not alone a menace to society.
Absolutely! If I gave my AI the ability to drive a car without the appropriate values, I wouldn't expect anything but complete mayhem from it.


More importantly however, value is quite possibly the purturbence in the state of awareness that allows identity. It builds itself based on abstracted stimulous as forged by its physical limitations and the abtractions that exist before it... except for the process of awakening. During the awakening, from a potential consciousness to a consciousness, value is realized. "hey, I get satisfaction when mommy hugs me or I get food in my belly". Boom, you have a spark in abstract space. The blank mind is forged with the newfound value, to change its focus regarding forthcoming abstractions from stimulous. In this manner, concepts are related and emotions propagated onto the conceptual inter-relationships that ensue from the process.
I suppose I'm considering pleasure or satisfaction as the value, and hugs and food as the stimulous. Why does the child like hugs and food? Because it is programmed that way. The pleasurable response to those stimuli don't just pop out of nowhere.


Emotions take on an interesting and crucial role to the development of mind. I think of them as the strain or fortification between concepts as they exist in the unconsious, which feed into the "real time experience" in a manner that interferes with it to express yet more value (via strain or fortification of the abstraction in the moment) and back into the entire process again. They are the "control signal" of a feedback loop modulated into how ideas relate to one another in your mind.
Ok.


It's an interesting notion that consciousness might begin with no value... I might even agree, but experience must necessarily purge such a valueless state by overwriting it with concepts which as a consequence of whatever concepts might already exist, represents the impending development of value, because value is incurred in the moment by circumstance. "is this the right action or the wrong action"? "is this thought valid or invalid"?

If it's truly conscious, I'd say it must be able to ask those questions of itself or there is no means for development into more sophisticated and more useful abstracts.
Ok.


You mean like humans do? You don't have to give a conscoiusness a value, by its very nature.. it is compelled to find one.
I disagree.


A positive input loop from a monitor of the speed of information flow, okay. What happens for instance though, if the information flow just stops? More feedback loops I guess? The mind, through value assessments (in whatever form) creates its own feedback loops based on the process confusingly described above I'm sure, and limited by its physical and abstract components.
Hmm...


I don't think you have to give it an anti-value. A conscious mind can see it in its absence, eventually it may stumble across it regardless of your programming.

Oh and I don't think depression is actually nuetral, but that's another topic.
I think we have a basic disagreement.


Well, I guess if you're good enough to limit its physicality in the manner you describe, then sure maybe so. I dunno for sure. Given that the human brain is really the only model we have for how minds can physically work, I think it'll be some time before one can select this response so carefully. Dunno. Depends on how things develop I suppose.
That's the point. It's a kind of sterile, simple starting point to explore the development of a conscious entity. It's fun!


I tried to blurt out too much with too few words up there and instead I think blurted too many words that don't necessarily mean anything except partial representations of how I see things to fit together.
Maybe. :D


Well like I say, I don't think you'd really have to "give it" any values for them to develop based on the one you give. That's the whole thing with development of comprehension. Complex outcomes from a simply principle or few. Much of the complexity can be described as value.
Yes. This is where we definitely disagree. Maybe we are defining "value" differently?


I get on this thing where to mind, value is "meaning". With no "meaning" you have no "mind" as far as I can tell, because meaning (value) is an expression of the relationships that exist within it.
Not sure about that.

My feeling is that organisms must have a genetically predefined set of basic stimuli mapped, to varying degrees and intensity levels, to a predefined set of pleasure/displeasure centers.

For example, A baby likes to be held. Why? Did it self generate the association of soft touches with a feeling of contentedness? No. Soft touches to the skin send direct signals to the pleasure centers of the brain. Endorphins are automatically released. It's a nifty machine.

I think I could associate all pleasure/displeasure behavior, from birth through to old age, to a few very simple prewired stimulous-response mechanisms. Throw some counterexamples at me and I'll try to defend myself. En Garde!

(late... getting tired)

[superluminal]

Wait. I think I disagree with myself in a couple places... ahh shit. Maybe not. Figure it out tomorrow.

[wesmorris]

For example, A baby likes to be held. Why? Did it self generate the association of soft touches with a feeling of contentedness? No.

Ha! (hehe)(I parry) Here you miss a crucial component of what's going to happen. You're talking about the raw physicality and presuming the abstract resultant. I believe the answer is actually, YES, the accosiation IS made by the baby and how it's wired fo shizzle. This is actually a basis of conception which will root new concepts as new stimulous is abstracted. As just a generall example, eventually the baby will be able to note from its observation of other babies, that THEY TOO recieve comfort from being held.. by consequence of its own conceptual roots projected onto its observation. What are the possiblities for development of new value? What if it observes a baby being held that isn't comforted? Will it question its understanding of how babies are comforted? Yes I know this may not happen for years, but I'm trying to get across how even the most basic associations of stimulous and response can be altered at least in how they are understood externally, which can have who knows what kind of implications as to the internal reaction.


Soft touches to the skin send direct signals to the pleasure centers of the brain. Endorphins are automatically released. It's a nifty machine.

True, but as the baby advances, endorphin release can actually be altered by the way it sees the process. In fact it could even learn to ignore the endorphins or associate them negatively with some other construct developed over time. Do I have to discuss deviants in detail now?

Hehe. It's simple principles that are complicated with the development of mind over time.


I think I could associate all pleasure/displeasure behavior, from birth through to old age, to a few very simple prewired stimulous-response mechanisms.

But you cannot fully control how it would see and utilized its stimulous, if it's truly a consciousness at least. Perspective cannot be fully controlled, as it is at least in part contructed of internal relationships the compile on one another and mutate as time moves on.

[superluminal]

Ah. I see how you are now. Trying to make me think, huh? Bastard.

[wesmorris]

I am a bastard, yes. But I'm only constrasting my own thoughts with what I see of yours. I'd guess you WILL THINK regardless of my promptage. Of what though may change upon what you think I'm saying. :p

[buddhaman386]

What exactly is your deffinition of "consious"? An awareness of ones surroundings? If so, then wouldn't a computer become "consious" with the simple addition of "fingers" (touch sensors), "ears" (sound detectors), and "eyes" (photosensors)? hmm...

[wesmorris]

I'm not going to waste time bantering with definitions of things that are damned near impossible to define, but I'll say "the process of abstracting stimulous into meaning" is a product of consciousness.

The data itself is exactly meaningless unless there is "an observer" to render it meaningful. Unless the "observer" is "conscious" it cannot forge this "meaning".

[KitNyx]

I think...there has been much discussion on valueless beings...Could we, as beings with values, envision or much less design, build, and or program a being without values? If we all had the exact same programming/engineering training would our programs have the same code? I am guessing not. I would think that my values would show through my code as would your values in yours. Even if the only values are only simplicity, elegance, etc...

So, in effect...the computer does have 100 million years of evolution designed into it.

Our values are created and reinforced by emotional involvement. Emotions are involuntary/unconscience hormonal responses to stimuli...(internal and external). There are logical reasons why simulated emotions should be included in any complex computer system that will have many multilayered parallel and series processors working simultaneously with limited processing power. For example, I would definitely include a system that would simulate frustration. If the program is dedicating said amount of power and time to solving problem x then it would need to weigh the possible benefits of solving the problem with the amount of resources necessary to make it happen, based upon how much it has used. Eventually, if the problem in still not solved it will cross a threshold telling it that the problem is no longer worth solving. This should work with any effort...otherwise ask the computer the answer to pi and you would have a worthless AI.

So what is the difference between emotions and simulated emotions? What is the difference between a machine with hormonal systems and a machine with simulated hormonal systems? In my opinion, there is none. In my opinion, machines are and will be the next step in our evolution. If we, homo sapiens, want to coexist with our machine progeny, then it will happen because we exist symbiotically.

[wesmorris]

I think...there has been much discussion on valueless beings...Could we, as beings with values, envision or much less design, build, and or program a being without values?

We can envision whatever we fancy... The more pertinent question in this vein of thought is: Is the capacity to assign value an imperative facet of intelligence?

What's your answer?


If we all had the exact same programming/engineering training would our programs have the same code? I am guessing not. I would think that my values would show through my code as would your values in yours. Even if the only values are only simplicity, elegance, etc...

I don't see how that is in any way relevant to creating an intelligent being.


Our values are created and reinforced by emotional involvement. Emotions are involuntary/unconscience hormonal responses to stimuli...(internal and external).

But they are part of the abstract component of self. The hormonal responses are reactionary to the abstract. As such, they are reflective of a component of something completely abstract, and not necessarily separate from thought itself. In fact "emotional involvement" is not the right term... I'd call it "impact", which is IMO, necessary to encapsulate a concept, or relate it to others.


There are logical reasons why simulated emotions should be included in any complex computer system that will have many multilayered parallel and series processors working simultaneously with limited processing power. For example, I would definitely include a system that would simulate frustration. If the program is dedicating said amount of power and time to solving problem x then it would need to weigh the possible benefits of solving the problem with the amount of resources necessary to make it happen, based upon how much it has used. Eventually, if the problem in still not solved it will cross a threshold telling it that the problem is no longer worth solving. This should work with any effort...otherwise ask the computer the answer to pi and you would have a worthless AI.

So what is the difference between emotions and simulated emotions? What is the difference between a machine with hormonal systems and a machine with simulated hormonal systems? In my opinion, there is none. In my opinion, machines are and will be the next step in our evolution. If we, homo sapiens, want to coexist with our machine progeny, then it will happen because we exist symbiotically.

You're talking about chips and logic. I don't think that line of thinking will ever yeild a truly conscious being. Perhaps though it could happen by accident in quantum computers.

[KitNyx]

I disagree...a newborn baby has no abstract concept of "self", but it still responds to emotional "impact". It can be frightened, startled, amused, pained, etc...I agree that the "abstract component of self" can in itself create hormonal responses (or at least envision situations that the hormonal system will respond to), that is why I included the blurb "stimuli...(internal and external).

Chips and logic? True. Neurons and logic? True...Neurons either fire or do not...True or False, on or off, 1 or 0...same thing. What makes you think our mind works any different than any other system in our body? Our body accomplishes amazing feats, but it does so by breaking the problem down into tiny parts...I can bench 200 lbs because each of my muscle cells take on a tiny fraction of the effort. The brain works the same way...

I agree that AI may come about as a result of the bizarre processes involved with quantum computing, but there is no evidence that our minds function as a result of quantum computing...If we can do it without quantum computing than we are the evidence necessary to show that it CAN be done without quantum computing.

- KitNyx

[wesmorris]

I disagree...a newborn baby has no abstract concept of "self", but it still responds to emotional "impact".

Sure it does. Eventually the process of doing instigates conceptual development. I assert that the emotional "impact" solidifies and facilitates the relationship between whatever concept was created, and new or existing concepts, which are at that stage, generally unsophisticated.


It can be frightened

- a "threat" to the flow of being.


, startled,

- a "shock" to the flow of being.


amused,

- a "fortification" of the flow of being.


pained,

- a "stress" to the flow of being.

If you are 'being', any of those conditions can happen, regardless of whether or not you were designed by humans (if you're AI).


etc...I agree that the "abstract component of self" can in itself create hormonal responses (or at least envision situations that the hormonal system will respond to),

And I think that the hormonal response is simply a reaction to what happens to the flow of being as I was trying to demonstrate above.


Chips and logic? True. Neurons and logic? True...Neurons either fire or do not...True or False, on or off, 1 or 0...same thing. What makes you think our mind works any different than any other system in our body?

First and most obvious, because other elements of the body only exist abstractly to the mind. With it, they are useless blobs of biological machinery. Further, if half a brain's nuerons are killed off (being now simply zero, does consciousness go away? Some of the things you might have been conscious of might, but consciousness persists.


Our body accomplishes amazing feats, but it does so by breaking the problem down into tiny parts...I can bench 200 lbs because each of my muscle cells take on a tiny fraction of the effort. The brain works the same way...

I think you're missing something here, but I can't put my finger on how to get the message across.

Perhaps I'm an idiot though, and my ego has convinced me my perspective has merit. I really can't tell if it does. I only know what I see. Perhaps I'm actually blind.


I agree that AI may come about as a result of the bizarre processes involved with quantum computing, but there is no evidence that our minds function as a result of quantum computing...If we can do it without quantum computing than we are the evidence necessary to show that it CAN be done without quantum computing.

I'm almost completely convinced it can't be done by a chip "as we know them", no matter how many of them you can run parallel to one another. Then again, maybe.. but it would have to take a funk approach.. hmm. Yeah I don't know how to facilitate the model, as I don't have teh model completely figured out. I need unlimited resources and an army of smart dudes. Given that (and control of it), I'm almost sure I could create AI if it's possible.

[KitNyx]

I agree with you in the end. I do not believe it will be done with chips as we know them. In fact, I am not sure it will be done with chips at all. I believe it will be an engineer not a programmer who creates the first AI...unless, a simulated neural net built within a 3D array is utilized.

- KitNyx

[wesmorris]

Read at your own risk. My head is spinning from having written it and at this juncture, I have no idea if it makes a smidge of sense at all. It's a blur that I can't read right now:

For the purposes of understanding mind I've postulated a degree of freedom of mind that I call "the abstract component". It's the realm of meaning. I originally stumbled across this postulate as a consequence of my answer to the koan about the tree in the forest. My answer is "the tree makes a sound, but the sound has no meaning". This focused me on the last term of my answer as that which separates mind from mechanism. It is the blending of the abstract with the mechanistic that allows for the condition of mind, creates perspective and allows meaning to the answer for the koan. While there exists the tree, it is exactly meaningless with no perspective to grant it such status.

In this idea, a model comes to mind. Let's assume "the tao" as "nuemenal reality" exists. It is by definition "nameless" in that it is a seamless function with no mind to discern between events. The act of observation assigns meaning (value) to an event. It is by the nature of the relationship of perspective to "the tao", reflected upon and filtered through that which it already internally exists to the observer. It is the contrast between the two states of the now that allow concepts to be formed in abstract space, and forces the brain to wire itself to represent this relationship to the best of its ability given its current conditions (chemical efficiency, existing relationships, blah blah, the condition in its entirety). In fact, consciousness of this process is what comprises dreams, as short-term events are translated into circuitry that allow more permanent (but they can be quelled by negative feedback later) place in the structure of potential thoughts. The short term is imprinted by the long term with pre-existing meaning (a section of "activated" conceptual relationships) which is then shaped by stimulous and overlayed to the current activated relationships like a puzzle piece to see if it fits. I think I got that part backwards, but in general, they merge to a resultant that then "falls forward" to the next branch demanded by the current resultant. How odd. My own circularity there got me stuck in a lil loop here trying to identify what it is about the current state that commands the next. It's a vector in abtract space perhaps, a "momentum" of sorts.

Obviously, abstract space is created or "accessed" internally and is thus subjective. "abstract space" is as such, necessarily experienced differently to all. It is in effect, the "geometry" of the conceptual relationships established in your brain by its operating parameters. I think it is reflected in some manner through the relationships established by nuerons from one to another. (an interesting side note: if part is taken away, some of its content can be recovered in the part that remains through the dangling relationships left by its departure)

And I lost my train of thought. *sigh*

Hmm. I wanted to say something about value in here, and why its unavoidable and uncontrollable, at least ethically.

Abstraction to me, is the act of taking a combination of inputs and giving them value, as in "placing them in relationship to others, such that there is contrast between this and the other". Whereby with no contrast between the two as I note from the analysis of the koan, there can be no meaning. With no value, there is no contrast. Without constrast, there is nothing to isolate one idea from another. It gets an "abstract assigment". "this thing" means [show some "picture in your head" (so to speak)]. Think of the word apple. Does it bring an image to mind? Okay now "tree". What is the difference between the two concepts? You see the tree as a container perhaps for the apple, or any number of things. Each of those things is potentially new value expressed in the contrast in value (meaning) between the two notions. And fall forward we go.

I sort of visualize it as interacting 3-dimensional "chunks of time" creating circuits that can activate, which can be imparted into the status of mind in whatever "present time" basically by the momentum of whatever activity preceded that moment.

(and to add a weak sentence extension: or as directed by biological processes as input into the 'status of mind' at the time)

[buffys]

lol, that must have taken an hour to write.

[wesmorris]

lol, that must have taken an hour to write.

My brain still hurts.

Do you have any idea as to what I meant? Unfounded gibberish?

[buffys]

oh crap. Sorry, I thought it was an elaborate joke.

Is what you wrote "unfounded" or "gibberish"? that's hard to say. Almost every word passed my spell check so I guess that says something.

[wesmorris]

oh crap. Sorry, I thought it was an elaborate joke.

Is what you wrote "unfounded" or "gibberish"? that's hard to say. Almost every word passed my spell check so I guess that says something.

Well, I can't say it isn't a joke, but it wasn't intended as such.

Spell check approval is quite validating. Thank you. ;)

[buffys]

It's so hard to recognise tongue-in-cheek or subtle humor from a serious point when it's written down. Can you summerize the point you were making? I'm honestly interested but your post tended to wander a bit.

[Russ723]

I don't think a computer consciousness must neccesarily value its own existence but, it must value something.

A computer with no abstracts would do math based program interpretation constantly.

A computer with no values would not prefer one operation over another.

Therefore it would behave just like the computer in front of you, reguardless of whether its hardware could support consciousness.


Having no personal sensory interpretation, it would not be within the "Taoist Trap"

[Russ723]

It also would not care to ridicule Russ for *Necesarily*

[Russ723]

AAAAAAHHHH!!! I can't even reproduce my mistakes correctly!