A House Cat Knows More Than The IBM Watson

Saying Watson (the Computer) is Confident is one of the most Incoherent things you have ever said. You seem to be Confusing the name of an output of a Calculation with real Confidence as Experienced by a Conscious Mind. Yikes! and Yikes!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, just educated.

You can continue to refuse education, of course. It's your right to never learn anything if you don't want to.

I do find it funny that, on a forum where the written word is the only medium of communication, people insist on remaining ignorant in matters of writing. Of course, if you have no desire to make an intelligent case for your claims, it doesn't matter one bit what you write - or how you write it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. Google "confidence interval." It is a mathematical expression that is calculated statistically from a set of observed data. Confidence need not be experienced by a conscious mind to be confidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If what you refer to as "real confidence" is the emotional notion of confidence, then I am not confusing the two at all. Note, though, that you again have simply defined "real confidence" as that experienced by a conscious mind... so including as an a priori assumption that which you are trying to conclude upon.
Where is this definition agreed upon? What is an expression of accuracy in an answer if not confidence, whether accompanied by emotion or not?

Unless / until you stop including the a priori assumption of the necessity of consciousness, your threads aiming to show how it can't therefore apply to things without consciousness are trivially true. So where is the discussion if you insist on being trivial? Everything else you say in the OP is simply waffle compared to a simply syllogism that could prove the trivial conclusion.
The discussion to be had is in the examination of your premises, your definitions. But your simple dismissal of alternative definitions (offered for purposes of discussion, if nothing else) with nothing but insistence upon the definition you're using (that has not been agreed upon) is hardly conducive to actual discussion, is it, thus once again showing that discussion is not your intention here (if it is not already blatantly obvious).

 

Evidence 1 : 2 happens when 1 happens .
Evidence 2: when 1 does not happen , 2 does not happen.
Therefore: 2 is directly related to 1
1 is a physical system, generating varied EM patterns in direct relationship with variation of thoughts.
2 variation of thought is evidenced by variation of EM patterns
Therefore: varied EM patterns can be mapped and compared to various thoughts.

If thoughts can be uploaded into an AI via EM patterns, we can program the AI to map the patterns down to EM quanta and the AI will solve the problem for us. AI assisted science.

 

It really doesn't matter. Come on, join the Modern World of Twitter and Texting where it's the Thoughts and Ideas that count, and not some stale grammatical structures. If you're not getting the Thoughts and Ideas, then I'm Sorry about your handicap.

 

That's not the point. People are saying the Computer itself is Confident. Wrong. Computers cannot be Confident, Scared, Happy, Sad, or have any other Human Conscious Experience.

 

You are like a mathematician who can't do math, but expects everyone to take him seriously because of his Thoughts and Ideas.

Yes, they can be. They can express that as a degree of confidence. Scientists, doctors and engineers regularly rely on machine determinations of confidence.

 

Of course Computers calculate all kinds of things, but it is not Coherent to say a Computer is Confident in the sense they said it. Here is the part of the reply I am complaining about:

Belief: confidence in a proposition as true. Watson is certainly confident, or it would have not provide the answer it does. It can even display how confident it is. It doesn't do it with emotion, like humans do, but with cold hard logic.

It is Incoherent to say that Watson (the Computer itself) is certainly confident. I'm just trying keep people aware of the concept of what Human Consciousness is. People are too liberal with their Anthropomorphizations of Computer actions. It is a convenient shorthand to talk like that but it does give non Computer savey people the wrong impression.

 

You are just mapping Neural Activity to Conscious Experience and you are not Explaining anything. How are varied EM patterns mapped and compared to various thoughts? What is the Mechanism of this?

 

Nope, it's completely coherent. Watson needs a certain amount of confidence before it will announce a result.

You are using the classic fallacy - argument from incredulity. "I don't understand the definition of that word, therefore the statement that uses it is incoherent because I don't understand it." Doesn't work that way. Your inability to understand something does not make something incoherent.

 

You're going about it ass-about-face. People are aware of what human consciousness is. What you're in fact doing is simply stating (in your view) not what consciousness is but what you think is not possible without it, simply by defining the things not possible without it as necessarily requiring consciousness.
There's nothing clever in what you're saying, despite the waffle. There's simply a trivial argument that goes from your definition to the conclusion you want to reach. And why is it trivial? Because you have explicitly included the conclusion within the definitions you use.

I'm sorry you are non-savvy with computers, as clearly you seem to be getting the wrong impression of what people are talking about.

As well as the argument from incredulity that billvon has mentioned, you are also dismissing any possible notion of the concepts in question that aren't equivalent in demonstration to when humans/conscious entities display them, or work exactly how they work with such conscious entities, rather than looking at what the concept actually is in a broader sense. Yes, there is a certain complexity to such concepts that comes with them being performed by conscious entities, but that doesn't preclude much simpler notions of the same concepts being demonstrable by non-conscious entities.

Furthermore, you're ignoring in this thread the fact that a cat, lacking self-awareness, is no more self-aware of what it does than IBM Watson is. Cats are biological, and obviously "conscious" in as much as any animal is (they are able to respond to stimuli and their surroundings etc), but they are not "conscious" if by that you mean self-aware - they do not pass any test of self-awareness, for example. They have memory, they have the ability to learn, but unless you can show how they are aware of what they know (this "conscious knowing" that you require for knowledge) then you can't claim that cats have more knowledge than IBM's Watson, as, according to your definitions, both would have ZERO knowledge.

So in answer to your thread: using your own definitions you are wrong - a cat "knows" precisely as much as IBM's Watson: ZERO.

 

What is the mechanism of Morse code?
I suggest you watch this very simple lecture by Roger Antonsen about learning to see things from different perspectives, which leads to "understanding"

 

A great test for self-awareness is the mirror test. Only hominids have a natural sense of self awareness. Some other animals can develop a sense of self-awareness.

Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall: Can You Reveal An Animal's Inner World At All?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A macaques monkey looking into the mirror of a motorbike in the grounds of a temple in Jaipur in the Indian state of Rajasthan.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/17/9475...can-you-reveal-an-animals-inner-world-at-all#:

Most animals and human babies will look behind the mirror to see who is that interloper.

But all biological organisms are self-referential to some degree.

 

Does it matter?

How about a cat's consciousness? Is that comparable to human consciousness?

You just keep trying to find what separates the human mind from the AI mind. For once try to find some "common denominators" . Then you will begin to see things from a different perspective and you will become more savvy in both human and computer language (another one of those human terms applicable to computer communication)..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How about comparing a bacteria to a computer:

Bacteria as computers making computers
Antoine Danchin
Section Editor: Michael Galperin

Abstract

...

...

...

...

...

continued.......

 

continued.......

....more.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704931/

 

CONFIDENCE

scientific confidence would need to be the strict rule of terminology
and algorithm & mathematical confidence is the value of margin of error or variance
or interference/resistance

a computational confidence is a quality of its ability to not make errors and produce the intended goal to a low if not 0 sum margin of error



statistics and the word confidence
deliberately confused in science to play with terminology and trick people

statistical confidence is a margin
and not a function

confidence in gambling is a margin

confidence in computing is a low error margin and a quality of mechanical engineering & programming

psychological emotional or mental theory confidence is Ego
and purely human sciences
not computer sciences

 

Does it require an emotional conviction for a computer to have confidence in it own abilities or can it gain confidence from statistical libraries?


GPT3 imitates a cat very nicely in this interview. Cats think killing mice is fun!

 

that is statistical confidence in outcome variable probability of known unknowns

however
the statistics do not start getting produced until an answer has been created

a computer can have a 100% confidence of delivering a value
even though that value is 0 as a perceptual result for the human
the confidence in obtaining that 0 remains

predetermined outcomes
statistical probability function & chaos theory ...(predictive modelling of chaos theory)
scientific method & ...