Printable View
I can read some higher mathematics decently, kind of like some people might be able to read a Portugese newspaper but are unable to speak or understand it fluently at ground level where it is spoken. The gentleman in the link takes great pains to show that under his model we live in a spherical universe in 3-space with both radiation and dust.
I am just trying on ideas here.
I agree with that. Two questions come to my mind whenever a cosmology is being presented: (1) What evidence exists for it? (2) What metaphysical assumptions are at stake?Quote:
Originally Posted by RogersSaaed
For example, Hawking, if I understood it from David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion" (pages 100 and following), presented a view of the Big Bang where the beginning of the universe does not have a beginning but has linear time circling around itself in some complex number space. Is there empirical evidence for it? No, because it is conveniently hidden behind the cosmic microwave background. Why would he be presenting something like this? Well, he has to avoid the universe having a beginning otherwise he needs a cause for that beginning and that leads to theism of some sort.
A metaphysical materialist has very little to work with. Everything including consciousness has to come from unconscious matter. This is bad enough in a universe that can be assumed to be eternal, but when the universe is shown to be expanding implying a beginning in the past the challenge to materialism is severe.
I am assuming both Shu and Crawford have similar materialist assumptions they are trying to protect, but I may be wrong since I haven't studied them enough.
My main problem with the artificial intelligence position that desiresjab promotes is the attempt to reduce consciousness to unconscious algorithms. The Turing test depends on fooling people with the assumption that none of us are really conscious to begin with and we are all fooling each other. So the AI might as well be considered conscious since consciousness does not exist anyway.
I think people like John Searle have shown that there is a difference between what we experience as a human being and what the algorithms might allow a machine to experience. This means the Turing test is a waste of time.
Nowhere has anyone said that. There are no parameters to the Turing test which assume none of us is really conscious. Turing never mentioned it. I mentioned it. How does that suddenly mean the Turing test depends on none of us being conscious to begin with? It doesn't. Why are you tying the Turing test to a wild idea of mine?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
What I have said is that the simulations for consciousness will become so good we will no longer be able to tell the difference by naked judgement. More extensive tests would have to be devised at some point. I am not sure how this came to mean in your mind anything about the quality of consciousness. My arguments are not concerned with the "actual" quality of future computers' consciousness, only that they possess a semblance of it good enough to perform certain threshhold actions.
Here is what you are overlooking in my ideas anyway. The cyborgs do not have to become conscious, man, they start out that way, as meat with a little metal added. There will be no question but that they are conscious, as they begin to outrun us in every human domain at an exponential pace.
Yes/No, I speculate that you are clutching certain ideas I have partially let go of. One of these is that the pooping organism known as human has a special relationship with God. I think you want to believe very badly that this relationship will carry us through to an afterlife. Who doesn't want that? I have to know that is why you are so intent on believing everything is full of consciousness, for instance. You also have a need to protect human consciousness as something unapproachable from below. What would it mean if you were wrong--if consciousness is approachable form below and our poop chutes have no special relationship with God?
Every bit of it with me is speculation, but with you some of it is belief. I cannot knock anyone for that. Maybe I even like it. Sometimes I may sound like I believe one way or another, but that is not really so. Leaning is possible when you are in the middle.
Of the four or five things I would call beliefs, most of them have been dug out and admitted right in this thread.
1 There are more things under heaven and earth than your philsophy has ever dreamed of.
2 A universe where two does not "follow" one is not possible.
3 Both racial and personal memory is woefully sparse for a race of history buffs.
4 Science has more chance of saving us than religion.
5 There is not enough evidence to be a believer or a disbeliever.
It's is not your idea that I am thinking of but why the Turing test should be considered of much importance. This test is passed if a certain percentage of those interacting with the machine are fooled and think the machine is human. Why should that imply that the machine is conscious unless consciousness is equated with fooling others that something is conscious?Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
Again, I refer you back to Searle's Chinese room critique of the Turing test. Our consciousness is different from that obtained by following an algorithm which is all these machines are able to do. Based on Searle's critique Turning tests are obsolete with regards to issues of consciousness. They are at most scores robot manufacturers can use to brag about the quality of their products.
If the cyborg's "meat" that allows him or her to remain alive contains human DNA then the cyborg is a member of the human species and is one of us. It is like someone who has his or her smart phone more physically attached to the body.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
It is more a difference between metaphysical idealism and metaphysical materialism. You seem to have a need to destroy human consciousness by reducing it to an algorithm that an unconscious machine follows.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
I, on the other hand, have no problem with subatomic particles being conscious in their own way. After all, when asked about their positions or momenta they seem to make a choice within the constraints of their dispositions to respond. All we can expect to know, ever, is the probability distribution of their choices (wave function).
That might be our difference in perspective. You see a machine following an algorithm as conscious, but you likely don't see the atoms making up the machine as conscious. I see the subatomic particles making up the machine as conscious in their own way, but I don't think the machine itself is conscious.
I will try to respond to both posts in one.
If artificial intelligence became good enough to fool humans consistently, it would then be up to other "slave" machines, to determine for us if certain individuals were real or artificial. Once a machine could fool other machines, what then? There would be no easy way of determining if it was conscious or not. They would not conceal themselves behind screens, they would walk among us openly. The only way to know for sure would then be invasive surgery.
You are right, these meat machines will be human. They may even be able to mate with humans. Some of their "metallic" qualities may even be passed on. "Mixed" individuals might turn out to be superior to either article.
Or the meat machines might inaugurate a new species unable to mix with natural humans but able to breed among themselves.
In the first case the human species gradually becomes meat machines because of the advantages. In the second scenario we might have the type of problem a million sci-fi movies have already depicted for us.
For a moment lay aside the question of whether these machine intelligences have real consciousness. If they could stand face to face and talk to a human undetected, they would become confidants at the least.
Even if they are nothing more than highly sophisticated self-programmable machines, that moment in their program history could easily come where the existence of humans seems to them to interfere with their prime directive. This is another idea out of pulp science fiction.
I think these beings are coming, and in the not too distant future. We will struggle with all the definitions and ethics when they get here. I imagine the debates will continue for some time among our descendants as to how they should classify their machines, much as we have done here.
But relaistically, do you want one of these guys in the foxhole with you, or would you prefer a normal human? Your chance of survival will be better with the borg and he commiserates, too. The same goes for any dangerous activity from mountain climbing to piloting airplanes. None of this requires true consciousness, but only the ability to fit in.
We have no doubt that our machines today are not conscious. Our descendants will likewise have no doubt their cyborgs are conscious. It is merely a matter of getting used to them, depending on them, taking their sympathy. Definitions of consciousness will continue to change and adapt until machine consciousness is fit somewhere into the scheme we are comfortable with.
A scary moment to consider is when these machines might start debating how to reclassify us.
If their metallic qualities are passed on then that would violate neo-Darwinism. I don't think neo-Darwinism is correct, but I suspect you might. That is why I am bringing it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
If they can mate with humans, then they are human. I am going by a definition of "species" that I think Niles Eldredge would support based on his theory of punctuated equilibria which is a theory of evolution that makes sense.
What advantages are there with having technology physically attached to your body? It seems that would make upgrades difficult. I certainly wouldn't want my smart phone embedded inside my body.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
If you are referring to the human "cyborgs", then they would have consciousness. If you are referring to machines driven by algorithms, then they do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
From the definition of "cyborg" that I am picking up from this discussion, we don't need to wait for our descendants to pass judgment: they would be conscious because they are humans with technology physically attached to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
I am curious what you think about quantum particles. Are they conscious or not in your metaphysics? If not, how do you make sense out of the choices they make when asked their positions or momenta?
Also, I would be curious to know what scientific or philosophical references you have to back up your metaphysics. I don't mean science fiction, speculations, belief systems or other forms of modern mythology, but real science or philosophy, the kind that can be cited and then examined critically.
I think we need some external reference to ground and further the discussion. For my part I have offered Searle as an antidote to belief in the value Turing tests. Eldredge comes to mind for evolution. There are various surveys of quantum physics that might help. I have referenced Dean Radin for psi phenomena and I could add Raymond Moody for accounts of near and shared death experiences. You did offer an article by Crawford. How does that relate to your ideas? Why is he of interest to you?
You keep making authoritative statements I cannot accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
"If you are referring to the human "cyborgs", then they would have consciousness. If you are referring to machines driven by algorithms, then they do not."
Just like that. It is impressive you know that our own consciousness is not algorithm driven. How did you find that out?
I suppose I would want to know exactly what you think my metaphysics is. I stated all my beliefs a few posts ago. I do not have an opinion on whether electrons are conscious. Remember, it is you who need this opinion. Why are you willing to grant consciousness to an electron, but ready for a death match when it comes to merely considering it for a futuristic machine which only operates on algorithms? Electrons, apparently operate from a more lofty paradigm than mere machine algorithms.
You need to insist there is some kind of magical, mystical threshhold to consciousness, unapproachable, uncreatable by all but god. I do not share this obsession. To you consciousness seems now vested with what is holy about the universe. You have that disguised need for what is holy. I think we all have that need. I try not to let it interfere with my process.
I know what it does, it clears the way for now saying consciousness had no beginning. That consciousness is at the heart of operations in the universe and always has been. That is another supposition I am not pressed to make.
I do not say electrons do not have consciousness, either. But on our thin knowledge of quantum operators I cannot jump out there simply because I would like for something to be true. I only take a stance when there is no other logical choice. Do I have a preference all of the time? Yeah. But not a stance. My stance is that there isn't very good evidence for a firm stance.
I can't wait for replies.
Consider a mosquito. What is its consciousness? I must add another belief to my stated arsenal and say I do not believe it is self conscious. The mosquito is not aware that it is conscious. It does not catch itself thinking. How do I know? I know where a bear makes duty, too.
Is the mosquito really conscious at all, would probably be a reasonable question? If reacting to temperature and hunger pangs and a host of pre-programmed instincts is all that is required, I feel superbly confident those criteria can already be met by our machines. Such are the "decisions" of a mosquito.
Does a dog catch itself thinking? Can't claim to know. But there must be some threshhold more significant than ordinary consciousness, if indeed the mosquito is conscious. That threshhold must be self consciousness.
But will a machine not know when it has been turned on? There you go--self-consciousness. Perhaps we are closer than we choose to accept.
I don't know what it is. That's what I am trying to find out. For example, I assume you are an atheist. That's fine, but there are different kinds of atheists. I don't know to what extent you are a materialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
Some atheists believe consciousness can be reduced to unconscious matter. I think this position given quantum physics has been discredited. It is no longer scientific. There are others who promote panpsychism such as Thomas Nagel. They admit that consciousness cannot be reduced to unconscious matter but in order for reductionist thinking to be valid, they must have consciousness at all levels including the quantum level. Then consciousness would not be completely emergent from unconscious matter. I see this as a form of dualism.
My view is idealism: unconscious matter does not exist. Everything is conscious. So panpsychism seems to make sense to me, however, I am not a reductionist. Consciousness not only goes down to the lowest forms of reality we are aware of, but also above beyond what we are aware of. The reason I am interested in this thread is I don't really know what I think is the case until I talk it out with someone who disagrees with me.
I don't need quantum reality to be conscious. It just seems that they are making choices and they might as well be considered conscious. However, I think Nagel's atheism would need something like this. He has to get consciousness at all the lower layers of reality. I just need it at the higher levels, but it could be everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
I am not trying to disguise anything. I have admitted being a generic panentheist although I don't profess any specific religion. I do yoga, meditate, recite mantras, but that is about it for religious practice. The need is real. Why? Because we wouldn't be here otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
Right. Consciousness had no beginning. The universe did. Consciousness is why the universe is here. That is why I am interested in the Big Bang. The Big Bang attempts to show without using consciousness that the universe could have been created from nothing. I want to see to what extent that "without using consciousness" part is necessary. It is a challenge to my idealist position. That would be my interest in papers such as the one you cited by Crawford.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
The only reason I think an electron could be conscious in its limited way is that its behavior can be modeled as a choice. It looks conscious more so than a machine that passes the Turing test does. Sure, that machine might fool me, but once I know it is a machine and operating under deterministic or even random algorithms, then I know it is not conscious based on Searle's Chinese room argument. With the electron I can't reduce its behavior to either deterministic or random processes. There are no hidden variables at that level of reality. So, I can't invoke Searle's argument against its consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
I don't know what it's consciousness might be. It moves around and avoids my hand when I try to brush it away. The only criteria I have for saying that something that is initiating changes is not conscious is whether those changes are determined by an algorithm. I don't think a mosquito or even a virus is so determined. Why? Because a quantum particle is not so determined and they are much smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
Thomas Nagel considered similar questions in an essay "What is it like to be a bat?" http://organizations.utep.edu/Portal.../nagel_bat.pdf I have not read it with enough care, but his essay "Panpsychism" in "Mortal questions" I have paid more attention to.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
Let me state for the nth time I consider myself an agnostic. That's okay, it probably seems hard to believe at times. I can lean both ways, which gives me the flexibility to play devil's advocate in either direction. If you were not advocating some of these ideas I would have to be doing it myself. I think they are great ideas.
What I want out of this is sight. Such a journey is made almost entirely alone in the company of others. I want a picture to believe in. Strangely, people find such pictures for themselves all the time. The mind can make almost anything it wants. I don't ask for much--I just want the picture. I view much lovely art, but I do not think I have seen the picture yet.
We can go far without the right picture. I do not actually need to find the right picture, I only need to be allowed to search for it forever.
If we knew these things that drive our curiosity we would no longer be curious.
To say electrons have consciousness "of a type," is a lot of wobble room.
I go back to my mosquito friend. It may be conscious but it is not self conscious. What is consciousness without self consciousness but a bunch of programmable instincts entered as parameters which determine behavior? We could easily model that, and I believe the machine would be every bit as conscious as the mosquito, if not a little more. The mosquito, always starting anew, has no concept of yesterday or time past, but the computer does.
Our machines already have primitive consciousness, what they lack are actual emotions we would construe as genuine. Concepts like willfulness and awareness are pretty abstract and vague anyway, not to mention consciousness itself. Words we used forever without bothering to define them precisely. What is consciousness to you?
I doubt that the mosquito is even conscious. It has an on and off state. It reacts, it tries to preserve itself--but does it need consciousness for that? It does not think of itself, it does not reflect on its thoughts. I do not believe the mosquito is making willful choices, but following its programming, so of course I find reason to doubt the electron too. Making a choice really is a matter of definition.
Some people do not find it appealing that consciousness could arise from lump matter. I find it immensely appealing that so much could be enfolded that would never be suspected.