Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Jun 11, 2007.
whats up with the quoting on this forum? is it just me that can see it?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Being able to hold a conversation and make relevant and apposite answers, in context etc is an indicator of consciousness.
How would you define consciousness? In a way that precludes that indicator?
whats the most intelligent chat bot created? this forum should get an intelligent debate bot,
i want to test it for intelligence where can i find one?
I agree with Chi.
I get irritated when people talk about Artificial Intelligence, as if ti is here now.
Unless a computer can take data that it has not before seen, process it, analyze it, reason and learn, it is not intelligent.
Gaining a vocabulary is NOT learning new information, it is simply storing more fields in a database.
The ability to process information without any understanding of the information that is being processed, is not intelligence.
We may someday have a device or program that can do this - I wouldn't be surprised if we did - but we do not yet, and I doubt we will soon.
Even if something DOES have true artificial intelligence, that still does not necessarily imply that the device is conscious.
I also a gree with Chi that consciousness, in this context, can loosely be described as "self aware".
What are some indicators of consciousness?
exactly, people speak as if we are in the age of artificial intelligence here and now, and some people say "well my toaster is self aware" lol
we might one day reach this level of computer science, but it is not here or upon is yet.
Then robots are, by your own "best test", conscious.
You only have to google the words "Robot mirror test" to find the discussions.
Look up this as well:
True - it is a test for assessing "thought". You could argue that "thought" equates to "consciousness" or at least implies it, and if so then the Turing test does test for consciousness.
If you understood what the Turing test really was then you would realise this.
No machine has yet passed the Turing test, as far as I am aware.
To do so requires a psychological evaluation of the answers, and the computer would need to demonstrate realistic emotion in its answers.
If a machine was in any way limited in this it would come across as merely cold, unemotional, and thus fail, despite having the world's encyclopedias at hand as reference material / knowledge.
My toaster is self aware, not on the level of complexity that we humans consider the norm, but in the same functional way.
Don’t get caught up in your own human perspective of the world and think its somehow special.
You don’t need
to be conscious.
You don’t need to be able to relate, or feel empathy to an object for it to have consciousness.
Why oh why would you create a machine that could feel fear, pain, despair and the host of other negative emotional states that can make life so unbearable to so many humans.
Lets just face the fact that that only human simulations will be able to pass the Turing test and that is just a matter of computational power. With our understanding of physics and time to run the simulation we could have our Turing machine on today’s technology. I assume that the machine human interaction is not limited by time constraints and it may take many generations of testers for it to pass, but speed of thought has nothing to do with consciousness or intelligence, just practicality.
So, if someone disagrees with you, that must mean they're ignorant. Is that how it works?
I'm not saying that we SHOULD create a machine that is conscious, I am saying that passing the Turing test does not mean the device IS conscious (or even intelligent).
Something programmed well could pass the Turing test.
i would define consciousness as the knowledge and understanding of your own existence. to be self aware of your life and that you exist. and also recognise that others exist.
holding a conversation alone is not consciousness, on that level of examination we could say that being aware that you are actualy having a conversation could count.
a computer follows what it is told to do and its program, a human can abstractly think independant from what it is programed to obey. like i can vow never to have sex again, and starve myself of food and water, wich goes against what i am told to do by my genetics and instincts,
computers are simply just not self aware of there own existence yet. i thought this was common knowledge but apparently science fiction has the better of some people.
sarkus your link even backs up what i am saying have you even read it properly?. we are heading in the direction of self aware robots, but we are far from completion yet man,
i think thought is differnt to holding and sending knowledge. to truley "think" you must be aware of what you know, a thought is not just having knowledge and expressing it,
robots dont pass the mirror test properly. because to pass it 100% you must know what you are, and understand that you are looking at yourself, the mirror test is not perfect either, it doesent 100% prove things it is just decent for animals,
What does the mirror test...test? I've seen cats and dogs catching their reflections in the mirror and all they seem to think, is that they've seen another animal.
That's exactly what it tests: whether you see nothing; whether you see another creature; or whether, as in the case of humans, chimps (all large apes?), dolphins, elephants, pigeons (no, honestly) and others... you see yourself.
And, from the link: apparently orang-utans pass but gorillas (with the notable exception of Koko) do not. And pigeons are only a possible.
Something tells me that it's all a bit wishy-washy and hit-and-miss.
gorillas dont pass the mirror test i dont think. you put 2 dots on the animals face to see if it realises it has a dot on its face, (more or less)
First let me say that as with most discussions on AI it always gets bogged down in the sticky goo of human spirituality. I has nothing to do with AI.
Self aware at its simplest level is the ability to respond to a state/s of existence. Consciousness is the process of being self aware.
And what proof do you have of this?
You are programmed via evolution, you can not be a chicken because you are not programmed that way. You can think abstractly the way you are programmed to do, not independently. Why do some many people think that they have some special power that transgresses what they are?
We humans are very complex, so much so that we can not, and never will, understand our selves.
The mirror test does not work on blind people yet they are clearly aware. We can use another similar test, the sound mirror (for want of a better name). Most people will not recognize there own voice when it is played back to them, especially if they have never had it played back to them before. They must learn that that is there own voice. So if you fail the sound mirror test does that mean your not self aware?
The point is that if you must assign consciousness to humans you must except that fact that it must be assigned to all other entities as well.
i already proved it in the post that you picked apart. we are programmed by evolution and instinct to eat, reproduce, drink, breathe, and survive,
yet i can stop myself doing any of those things. i would like to see a computer go against what it is programmed to do with intent to dissobey its commands.
why atr you trying to say that computers are self aware and conscious though? i dont get it we all know that we have not reached that level of tech yet. why fool yourself?
And there we have our disconnect.
That is simply absurd.
If you think a thermostat is self-aware, then this conversation is pointless and the word self-aware is essentially meaningless.
Redefining a word to meet your desires in whatever context is convenient, but accomplishes nothing and renders the word meaningless.
Tell me then, what, in your opinion separates humans and other animals from inanimate objects?
Finally a real question. What separates us from inanimate objects is the level of complexity. We are made from trillions of little thermostats, logic units or whatever you want to call them. Because of the complexity we make up abstract concepts that attempt to explain things we cant know.
Suicide is considered a mental defect in most situations. You still dont understand that you are programmed to do this or any other human behavior. I dare you to stop breathing, easy to do you might say, yet I have never heard of someone suiciding by holding their breath.
who said killing myself from holding my breath? i said i can stop breathing, and i also said stop eating and stop drinking,
we are programmed to eat and drink. is it a mental defect if i choose to fast?
No it is not, but only if you start again. I fast every day inbetween meals, no big deal, its what I am.
You are a human and can only behave like a human, nothing more, nothing less, its just the way you are made (programmed).
the word is meaningless without a definition, and a definition that cant be tested is pointless. My definition can be tested, it is simple, concise and without ambiguity.
Separate names with a comma.