First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Post Reply Artificial consciousness is impossible
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

maxgale wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


maxgale wrote:

But I want to sex up a Vocaloid.


You can. It would be like using any "sex toy"





Au contraire.



A Vocaloid (according to the official lore) is a true AI in the sense that is is able to understand, and create, art. That it has established a legitimate emotional and psychological capacity for expressing humanity.



I want to sex up a Vocaloid and through that experience have them express their sheer lust by having them create and sing an entire album about how they became yandere.


Well. I guess none of those VR "accessories" coming out would be good enough.

You could play pretend if you don't mind though. Hasn't stopped some fans...
8740 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Disboard
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

GrandMasterTime wrote:


hemicuda2 wrote:

Artificial consciousness is impossible in the same way that flying or going to the moon was impossible. People only thought it was impossible up until the moment it was done.

At this point in time it is ignorant to claim anything impossible. If you still insist on claiming it impossible fine whatever but still try anyways because eventually you'll find out its not.

If it has happened once in nature then we can make it happen again.


Making a a four sided triangle is impossible by definition. Some things really are impossible.


In a sense yes but what you're saying is also completely stupid.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


maxgale wrote:

But I want to sex up a Vocaloid.


You can. It would be like using any "sex toy"


Except if it has feelings it has to be treated as an equal not not a sex toy.

Who is right or wrong aside if "if" robots do somehow have consciousness in the future we would have to treat them as living beings and not sex dolls etc


It will have just as much feelings as the individual inside the Chinese Room has comprehension of the Chinese language... Zero.

Those bots would be "Feelings Rooms".


hemicuda2 wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


hemicuda2 wrote:

Artificial consciousness is impossible in the same way that flying or going to the moon was impossible. People only thought it was impossible up until the moment it was done.

At this point in time it is ignorant to claim anything impossible. If you still insist on claiming it impossible fine whatever but still try anyways because eventually you'll find out its not.

If it has happened once in nature then we can make it happen again.


Making a a four sided triangle is impossible by definition. Some things really are impossible.


In a sense yes but what you're saying is also completely stupid.


How about programming without programming. That's the contradiction I've placed in the proof.
31688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / M / Planet KLK-X
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

An "analogous structure"? What kind is it? If you don't define it carefully you may kick it right out of the realm of AI.


Exactly. What I'm talking about is strictly not in the realm of Artificial Intelligence. It's in the realm of Artificial Life. It doesn't matter what the materials are, only that it's sufficiently compact and massively interconnected-- in a way to produce a "mind", of course.

But do I detect moving goalposts? I believe your original thesis (it's been edited now) was that artificial consciousness, in general, is impossible. You didn't say that it had to be programmed with a digital computer. I'd agree that programmed consciousness is impossible. Nothing programmed with a conventional computer, no matter how many calculations per second it can perform, will ever have actual understanding.
20863 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:

It will have just as much feelings as the individual inside the Chinese Room has comprehension of the Chinese language... Zero.

Those bots would be "Feelings Rooms".


Seeing as I would be no different then them I guess I have no feelings.
If they are in the Chinese room so are we, human brains are just instructions saying if X do y after all and free will etc is an illusion produced by our consciousness which we don't even understand well at all
8740 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Disboard
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:


hemicuda2 wrote:

Artificial consciousness is impossible in the same way that flying or going to the moon was impossible. People only thought it was impossible up until the moment it was done.

At this point in time it is ignorant to claim anything impossible. If you still insist on claiming it impossible fine whatever but still try anyways because eventually you'll find out its not.

If it has happened once in nature then we can make it happen again.


You don't know how the argument worked. It's arrogant for you to turn it away without looking at its mechanics.

How do you program without a program?

The impossible is defined as a self-contradiction.


Okay so i can't be bothered to read your post, are you saying it is impossible for artificial consciousness as a whole or in just one or few specific ways?

If you're claiming it as a whole then i may say it again, if nature has done it once then it can be done again. If human consciousness came out of complete blind luck and chance over the course of millions of years then it is well possible for it to be done with human guidance.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

Seeing as I would be no different then them I guess I have no feelings.
If they are in the Chinese room so are we, human brains are just instructions saying if X do y after all and free will etc is an illusion produced by our consciousness which we don't even understand well at all


Incorrect. In addition to actions we have experience and comprehension. The entire universe isn't just centered around action.


hemicuda2 wrote:

Okay so i can't be bothered to read your post, are you saying it is impossible for artificial consciousness as a whole or in just one or few specific ways?

If you're claiming it as a whole then i may say it again, if nature has done it once then it can be done again. If human consciousness came out of complete blind luck and chance over the course of millions of years then it is well possible for it to be done with human guidance.


There is no way, period.

Then how do you program without a program?

Human guidance of what? Organic entities? Then it's not exactly artificial.
11725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:

An "analogous structure"? What kind is it? If you don't define it carefully you may kick it right out of the realm of AI.

The part regarding "acting within its own interest" is a misnomer. The programmer would be telling the AI what to perform (including what code to modify, in bottom-up AI) in which condition. The AI would not have any conception of the meaning of anything, much less its own programming.

No matter how far into the future a contradiction goes, a contradiction is still a contradiction. Please look at the actual argument.

It's only a contradiction if you assume that basic physical matter/structure is in no way related to consciousness. The idea that those structures have no properties associated with consciousness sounds circular. It's like a caveman saying "Stones have mass but has no gravity. Therefore, no matter how you build it, it will still have no gravity that we can demonstrate. You'd have to demonstrate a physical property free of physical properties!".
dat abuse of semantics tho

You'd have to first demonstrate that a molecule for example has no contribution to consciousness or else you'd be thinking "Hydrogen isn't wet and Oxygen isn't either, H20 can't be wet.". It sounds absurd for mere matter to have correlation to consciousness depending on structure but it's not proven to be impossible. What I mean is, objects by themselves are not conscious in the traditional sense but they have the ingredients like how H20 would be the ingredients to creating something wet.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy_of_Composition

Well actually, if you're arguing whether it's possible for us to create something completely artificial and "know" that it's conscious, that's not something I can argue against.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

qwueri wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

The part regarding "acting within its own interest" is a misnomer. The programmer would be telling the AI what to perform (including what code to modify, in bottom-up AI) in which condition. The AI would not have any conception of the meaning of anything, much less its own programming.


Not so much a misnoner as it is stupidly complex. Even a very basic survival function like "do what is needed to stay powered on" requires the ability to sense resouces and threats, act upon those stimuli, predict possible outcomes, and learn from experimentation and teaching.

Like the basic concept of "I am hungry" does not require a full understanding of how your digestive system works, just how to get food and know what is safe to eat (super simplified for brevity).


Basically.

People who have no programmed before tend to grossly underestimate what it takes to bootstrap a system to a point where it does anything at all. Without programming, there's not even a way to get any data into the thing, much less have it process that data the way its meant to be processed by the programmer. First you set up the initial conditions, and even that has programs and routines to go through.


RedExodus wrote:

It's only a contradiction if you assume that basic physical matter/structure is in no way related to consciousness. The idea that those structures have no properties associated with consciousness sounds circular. It's like a caveman saying "Stones have mass but has no gravity. Therefore, no matter how you build it, it will still have no gravity that we can demonstrate. You'd have to demonstrate a physical property free of physical properties!".
dat abuse of semantics tho

You'd have to first demonstrate that a molecule for example has no contribution to consciousness or else you'd be thinking "Hydrogen isn't wet and Oxygen isn't either, H20 can't be wet.". It sounds absurd for mere matter to have correlation to consciousness depending on structure but it's not proven to be impossible. What I mean is, objects by themselves are not conscious in the traditional sense but they have the ingredients like how H20 would be the ingredients to creating something wet.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy_of_Composition

Well actually, if you're arguing whether it's possible for us to create something completely artificial and "know" that it's conscious, that's not something I can argue against.


I don't see how that follows. The question still remains on how to program without a program. Computational systems deciphering states still have programs. It's almost as if you're saying that something like OCR readers don't require programming. Please clarify.
Posted 6/8/16

RedExodus wrote:

It's only a contradiction if you assume that basic physical matter/structure is in no way related to consciousness. The idea that those structures have no properties associated with consciousness sounds circular. It's like a caveman saying "Stones have mass but has no gravity. Therefore, no matter how you build it, it will still have no gravity that we can demonstrate. You'd have to demonstrate a physical property free of physical properties!".
dat abuse of semantics tho

You'd have to first demonstrate that a molecule for example has no contribution to consciousness or else you'd be thinking "Hydrogen isn't wet and Oxygen isn't either, H20 can't be wet.". It sounds absurd for mere matter to have correlation to consciousness depending on structure but it's not proven to be impossible. What I mean is, objects by themselves are not conscious in the traditional sense but they have the ingredients like how H20 would be the ingredients to creating something wet.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy_of_Composition

Well actually, if you're arguing whether it's possible for us to create something completely artificial and "know" that it's conscious, that's not something I can argue against.


The brain is the only organ that exhibits consciousness, no other organs or molecules exhibit this property. My guess is that only organic molecules (neurons) can even cause it.

So that's why there's no way microchip and silicon can conjure up consciousness. People are probably confusing randomness for consciousness.
11725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:


RedExodus wrote:

It's only a contradiction if you assume that basic physical matter/structure is in no way related to consciousness. The idea that those structures have no properties associated with consciousness sounds circular. It's like a caveman saying "Stones have mass but has no gravity. Therefore, no matter how you build it, it will still have no gravity that we can demonstrate. You'd have to demonstrate a physical property free of physical properties!".
dat abuse of semantics tho

You'd have to first demonstrate that a molecule for example has no contribution to consciousness or else you'd be thinking "Hydrogen isn't wet and Oxygen isn't either, H20 can't be wet.". It sounds absurd for mere matter to have correlation to consciousness depending on structure but it's not proven to be impossible. What I mean is, objects by themselves are not conscious in the traditional sense but they have the ingredients like how H20 would be the ingredients to creating something wet.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy_of_Composition

Well actually, if you're arguing whether it's possible for us to create something completely artificial and "know" that it's conscious, that's not something I can argue against.


I don't see how that follows. The question still remains on how to program without a program. Computational systems deciphering states still have programs. It's almost as if you're saying that something like OCR readers don't require programming. Please clarify.


I'm not sure I fully understand your wording either. That's a lot of jargon for a layman like me.



Edit: Okay, what I mean is: The physical programming(not simulation) has what I will for now dub "consciousness puzzle pieces". If you arrange them in just the right way, they create an emergent property of traditional consciousness.

LaughedAtByTheGods wrote:


RedExodus wrote:

It's only a contradiction if you assume that basic physical matter/structure is in no way related to consciousness. The idea that those structures have no properties associated with consciousness sounds circular. It's like a caveman saying "Stones have mass but has no gravity. Therefore, no matter how you build it, it will still have no gravity that we can demonstrate. You'd have to demonstrate a physical property free of physical properties!".
dat abuse of semantics tho

You'd have to first demonstrate that a molecule for example has no contribution to consciousness or else you'd be thinking "Hydrogen isn't wet and Oxygen isn't either, H20 can't be wet.". It sounds absurd for mere matter to have correlation to consciousness depending on structure but it's not proven to be impossible. What I mean is, objects by themselves are not conscious in the traditional sense but they have the ingredients like how H20 would be the ingredients to creating something wet.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy_of_Composition

Well actually, if you're arguing whether it's possible for us to create something completely artificial and "know" that it's conscious, that's not something I can argue against.


The brain is the only organ that exhibits consciousness, no other organs or molecules exhibit this property. My guess is that only organic molecules (neurons) can even cause it.

So that's why there's no way microchip and silicon can conjure up consciousness. People are probably confusing randomness for consciousness.


The problem I'm taking with this is that the H20 composition fallacy states that you specifically need H20 in that exact configuration to create "wetness" out of those particles but we know from experience that there are many ways of creating something wet.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

RedExodus wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


RedExodus wrote:

It's only a contradiction if you assume that basic physical matter/structure is in no way related to consciousness. The idea that those structures have no properties associated with consciousness sounds circular. It's like a caveman saying "Stones have mass but has no gravity. Therefore, no matter how you build it, it will still have no gravity that we can demonstrate. You'd have to demonstrate a physical property free of physical properties!".
dat abuse of semantics tho

You'd have to first demonstrate that a molecule for example has no contribution to consciousness or else you'd be thinking "Hydrogen isn't wet and Oxygen isn't either, H20 can't be wet.". It sounds absurd for mere matter to have correlation to consciousness depending on structure but it's not proven to be impossible. What I mean is, objects by themselves are not conscious in the traditional sense but they have the ingredients like how H20 would be the ingredients to creating something wet.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy_of_Composition

Well actually, if you're arguing whether it's possible for us to create something completely artificial and "know" that it's conscious, that's not something I can argue against.


I don't see how that follows. The question still remains on how to program without a program. Computational systems deciphering states still have programs. It's almost as if you're saying that something like OCR readers don't require programming. Please clarify.


I'm not sure I fully understand your wording either. That's a lot of jargon for a layman like me.


I don't see how seeing things in a panpsychic (i.e. everything is conscious) paradigm is having anything to do with this discussion.

So what if all the components are panpsychic? None of them would still meet the two criteria listed in my original post:

1. Intentionality

2. Qualia
414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16
I have had an NDE (Near Death Experience) I was one of 8 million people documented with a similar experience. It wasn't like a dream at all everything was so real. The body is just an engine for the soul to use temporarily use to gain knowledge and grow throughout life. Life as we know it on this earth is like this. Beyond it, it's impossible to comprehend. To put into laymen's terms: Earth is like an 8-but Nintendo system. The afterlife, AKA Heaven, is multi-dimensional. It is the super gaming console and puts this Earth to shame. That said, Artificial Consciousness will be possible. We humans advance quickly. Technology these days is making it and everything else that much possible. Never say something can't be done. I never used to think NDE's were real or possible.

As per Wikipedia: Self-awareness in robots is being investigated by Junichi Takeno[17] at Meiji University in Japan. Takeno is asserting that he has developed a robot capable of discriminating between a self-image in a mirror and any other having an identical image to it,[18][19] and this claim has already been reviewed (Takeno, Inaba & Suzuki 2005). Takeno asserts that he first contrived the computational module called a MoNAD, which has a self-aware function, and he then constructed the artificial consciousness system by formulating the relationships between emotions, feelings and reason by connecting the modules in a hierarchy (Igarashi, Takeno 2007). Takeno completed a mirror image cognition experiment using a robot equipped with the MoNAD system. Takeno proposed the Self-Body Theory stating that "humans feel that their own mirror image is closer to themselves than an actual part of themselves." The most important point in developing artificial consciousness or clarifying human consciousness is the development of a function of self awareness, and he claims that he has demonstrated physical and mathematical evidence for this in his thesis.[20] He also demonstrated that robots can study episodes in memory where the emotions were stimulated and use this experience to take predictive actions to prevent the recurrence of unpleasant emotions (Torigoe, Takeno 2009).
810 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:


foraslan wrote:

The counterargument to the chinese room experiment is that consciousness, artificial or otherwise, is an illusion. In fact, the argument goes, we are doing just what the man behind the opening is doing: reacting to experiences and stimulants based on our genetic instructions.


That doesn't turn away the existence of the subjective experience (see quoted red term above). If you're arguing against subjective experience itself, then it goes beyond the bounds of the Chinese Room argument.


By experiences, I simply meant things we go through; happenings affecting us. I do not understand what you mean by "That doesn't turn away the existence of the subjective experience," or the relevance to what I said. Perhaps you mean the argument that consciousness is an illusion does not account for subjective interpretations of events? If that is the case, it's getting into things I don't know a lot about, but it's possible that a relatively new field called epigenetics can or will eventually pick up the slack. If you want details on that, it's probably best you look into it yourself, but the gist is that things that happen to us, or other environmental factors, can alter or prevent the expression of certain genes.
4026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/8/16
You imply that consciousness must exist outside programming. I submit that is a flawed thesis for the following reason;
1. Programming languages are nothing more then a human understanding and interface to machine code of bits, on and off, 1 and 0.
2. It is a fact we have electric pulses firing across neurons, in essence ones and zeros running throughout our brains by the billions.
3. To state that AI consciousness is never possible is to state that you know all that is knowable about consciousness and how it works. The human race is not at that level of knowledge yet.

Debate....
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.