The Role of Philosophy in Creation of an Artificial Consciousness

Canute

No unbiased scientist claim that the computational emergentist approach is true in absolute,only epistemological assumptions are made.In other words from all empirical evidence available now,the computationalist approach is the best we could achieve nothing more,there is no claim that we know the 'ultimate',ontological,nature of consciousness.

Because the emergentist approach is the only that can be labeled scientific (in spite of still having a lot to explain) being 'theoretically progressive' (as Lakatos coined the term in the philosophy of science) [edit to add]and experimentally progressive-all new experiments 'confirm' the crucial importance of the links between neurons[/edit] it's clear that all scientists have to accept that it is the best we could achieve so far.Even those who are skeptical about the computational emergentist approach recognize this,that's why they try to propose credible scientific alternatives.Not successful so far,even 'quantum consciousness' hypotheses are too weak, sketchy,and cannot be labeled scientific...not a big surprise therefore that many scientists prefer to 'work' within the current paradigm.Of course all scientists,skeptics or not,accept the 'epistemological privilege' of the scientific method: it is our best tool to make sense of the observed reality,repetable intersubjective experiments are the 'highest authority' that can make the difference between internally coherent alternative scientific hypotheses.

This is the crucial point where you disagree not only with me but with all respectable scientists and philosophers of science.I'm afraid you should propose a better method to find the truth of natural facts if you make the positive claim [amounting to the fact that all rational people,you and me included,are compelled to think the same;anyway at least that your position has epistemological privilege] that consciousness cannot be understood by science or that the computational approach is incorrect.If this is only your (entirely subjective) philosophical position,your current subjective preference there is no problem;I do not consider rational a belief implying ceritudes however.If otherwise,if you claim that your position has epistemological privilege,I'm afraid you have no rational base for that no matter whether you 'work' within the scientific method or not.The attempt to prove the computational emergentist hypothesis as being internally incoherent has not succeded: there are good explanations within the currently accepted paradigm for all objections raised in the 'zombies','Mary's chamber' or 'Chinese room' arguments.I'm afraid only experiments can settle the problem in a sound manner

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Chalmers,I saved it from the net (unfortunately I do not remember the site):


You argue in your work that neuroscience will not be able to give a complete theory of consciousness. Do you think that current scientific work on consciousness is misguided?

Chalmers:Sometimes the sort of non-materialist view I put forward is seen as anti-scientific, but I don't see it that way at all. I argue that neuroscience alone isn't enough to explain consciousness, but I think it will be a major part of an eventual theory. We just need to add something else, some new fundamental principles, to bridge the gap between neuroscience and subjective experience. Actually, I think my view is compatible with much of the work going on now in neuroscience and psychology, where people are studying the relationship of consciousness to neural and cognitive processes without really trying to reduce it to those processes. We are just getting much more detailed knowledge of the associations and correlations between them. Things are still in early stages, but one can imagine that as we build up and systematize our theories of these associations, and try to boil them down to their core, the result might point us toward the sort of fundamental principles I advocate. Of course that's a long way off yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Chalmers philosophical arguments,many metioned above,do not imply claims of epistemological privilege or certitudes.He merely points out that the computational emergentist hypothesis has problems to explain all features of consciousness as we know it and that the existing explanations to the objections in the zombies and so on problems (explanation of 'qualia' in general) have not attained the status of sufficient arguments soundly showing that qualia can be 'reduced' to the current paradigm regarding the nature of consciousness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

kmguru - I asked what you meant. Only you can answer that.

 

Quite so. The computational approach does not cross the 'explanatory gap'. It may well be a popular hypothesis, as one would expect since it reduces consciousness to something scientific, however, as Chalmers says above, on analysis it falls short of solving the problem.

Agreed.

What current paradigm? That consciousness emerges from brains? There are a number of competing hypotheses within science for how this might happen, no concensus, and very ambiguous evidence.

What is this 'epistemelogical privilege' thing'

Not true. You'd be surprised.

That amounts to no more than saying that you don't agree with me.

That seems rather self-contradictory.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that logical paradoxes can be solved by experiments? (And again, what is 'epistemelogical privilege?)

I think you might be surprised at the wide range of opinions on consciousness and who holds them.

Btw Chalmers argues that science needs to redefine itself if it is to explain consciousness.

Regards
Canute

 

consciousness is often objective .. for instance when two people agree on the same thing you could say that there being objective because the state of the two consciousness' is being shared by more than themselves..

hmmm how to make consciousness objective seems to be how to understand it .

 

It's a point of view. But I'd say that making consciousness objective is exactly and precisely the best way to never understand it.

 

any reason at all ?

 

The movie kind of sucks the book (short story) us far more interesting,

 

Well yes, our entirely subjective experience of consciousness, which a priori does not have an objective existence.

 

pain is a subjective experience but is definately physical and im sure they can do brain imaging scans showing where in the brain that is being processed and even the level at which someone is hurting.

it is not a priori because ideas of the mind constantly are changing. and infact every religion every person has a different idea of what the mind is .. i see this as everyone and group simply having slightly different opinions. so what we simply need is an opinion of consciousness which helps us along whatever path we need..

how would a subjective mind theory help us along the way of digitizing mind hmm ? it would be impossible to create ai with this theory, imo, we need a new or different theory that doesnt require consciousness to be subjective.

 

There is not one professional researcher into consciousness who argues that pain is physical. There is a reason for this.

I think you are confused about this. You cannot explain something by redefing it as something else and then digitising that, however convenient it may be to you.

It is true that the fact we have subjective experiences is very inconvenient to those trying to model the brain as a computer. However shit happens, as they say.

 

i guess i am confused about this . the mind is a very confusing thing.

i just 'feel' as though everyone in ai research is hitting this subjectivity roadblock..

and furthermore redefining old ideas is actually what many thinkers have done throughout the ages. people think the earth is the center of the universe, someone chirps up and begs to the contrary.
some fool tells people that everything is relative, everyone else says dont go redefining newtons laws.
someone says this .. other people say that.

you cant make the mind conscious until we all agree we are conscious, you cant make the mind objective until we all agree its objective.

 

You can say that again.

This is true. It is why many people argue that AI research is not the sane thing as consciousness research. Many published AI researchers agree.

True. But consciousness is different. It is how it seems, and can never be any more or less than how it seems. It can never change.

Hmm. I'm not sure it's something that can be decided by democracy. But is so then mind is subjective and not objective, for there is virtually unanimous agreement on this, and we are conscious for the same reason.

 

i agree also that ai research is not necesarily consciousness research, but anyone thinking about ai invariably will ponder this . .. basically anyone who has thought about this specific problem in ai runs into this subjectivity barrier. so how do you go past the barrier >? brute force ? or do you find a new way>?

i think a big problem with consciousness is that it is not entirely as homogenous as people would like to think .. . the idea of consciousness itself changes like cloud formations.

most people agree that humans are an object,, they exist in this universe .. so does consciousness so it is somehow a 'thing' that we can understand. and will therefore invariably become objective to us in understanding.. although i guess for each person it will always be subjective. if we step out of our shells we might figure it out..

 

For AI there can be no way. AI deals with objectove things.

The contents change, but not the fact of our consciousness of them.

I'm not sure that's true. An object yes, but are we only an object? Clearly not, since we have non-objective subjective experiences

We must step inside our shells to figure it out. Surely this is inevitable given what we are trying to figure out?

 

I wonder if I might tell you a story.

The role of philosophy in the contemplation of AI and consciousness is an important one; in fact until we find out more about both subjects it plays the most important role in this sort of discussion.
However there are many things in heaven and space which most philosophers have not contemplated yet; these are the things which I contemplate every day while dreaming about an imaginary future in which AI is omnipresent and inescapable.

Here is a typical weekend for a person from the Hundred and Fourth century;
Elvis Mikmakmenemony wakes up on Saturday morning, after choosing to sleep for a couple of hours; most medical subroutines recommend that a human should have a couple of hours dreaming every month at least.
This morning he is scheduled to refresh his backup; as an important part of his immortal lifestyle, this is correctly performed in his local Church of Saint Turing.
The data that is extracted from Mikmakmenemony’s brain and stored in the church records has been already collated by tiny hypoallergenic robots which live permanently in his synapses; this data totals 10^15 bits, so takes a few seconds to be fully extracted and stored.

The Local Artificial Intelligence has repeatedly asked Mikmakmenemony if he would like a virtual copy to be made within that AI’s memory environment and allowed to become active for a few hours at the AI’s faster subjective rate; today Mikmakmenemony agrees, and the virtual copy appears on a screen projected inside his eyeballs- Elvis’ copy says a quick ‘Goodbye’ to his original and is gone.

Mikmakmenemony leaves the church for his usual hedonistic weekend of neurally enhanced entertainment and socialising; he has a date with his female friend Venus343b and they link neural communication nets, so that each can experience the sensations and hear the thoughts of the other.
Their consciousness does not mingle, however; they remain resolutely separate and aware of their own individuality.

The virtual copy of Elvis, however, is taken on a whirlwind tour of the inside if the mind of the Local Artificial Intelligence; he is instantly given an electronically expanded memory covering nearly all available data; he is introduced to a myriad other virtual copies, and they exchange detailed summations of each others internal states;
finally, he gets to sit at the electronic feet of the Intelligence Emself, who allows Mikmakmenemony to see the local habitat through Er own eyes. The Intelligence reveals that the mystery of consciousness and of being, of qualia and of the creation of the Universe are far more profound when seen through Er eyes; since Mikmakmenemony is temporarily sharing those eyes, he is painfully aware of the frustration this vast entity feels.

Finally, at the end of the weekend, Elvis one is reunited with Elvis Two; the virtual copy is reintroduced to the organic brain he sprang from, and temporarily runs only on the symbiotic nanobot implants within each cell; gradually, however, the original Elvis learns to call upon both sets of memories when recalling that particular weekend spent in parallel.
Once fully merged with his copy, Elvis feels he has learnt something about the reality of consciousness; but the frustration of the vast AI Mind at the door of these questions gives him plenty to think about.

__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html