First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Artificial consciousness is impossible
37531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16
As I said in the other thread...thinking outside the box...you say it is impossible, but you are talking about what we know of today and the technology of today. I can take your word for it when it comes to that. But we don't know what paradigm shifts there will one day be in technology, in creating AI, we don't know what kind of breakthroughs we'll make in science that relate to and can be applied to AI...really, one day we could create AI so advanced compared to the AI of today that it is very different...the AI of today could be very primitive to the AI of decades or centuries from now...it could all really develop and evolve over time.

Think of the scientific community in the year 1780. They never knew where technology and science would go in between then and 2016 and what they would be like and where they would be at in 2016. When they first discovered atoms and molecules, they never knew we would one day discover DNA, genes, learn about illnesses and traits caused by genes, they never knew a thing such as gene splicing would be developed...as they learned more about Venus and the moon, never did they think we would be in a galaxy, and that there are hundreds of billions or trillions of galaxies in a great large universe...they didn't know of black holes, pulsars, quasars, neutron stars...they never knew we would discover subatomic particles, that Einstein would discover his findings on relativity, that we would determine a Planck length is the shortest unit of length or that space and time are intertwined and that it can be likened to a 'fabric'.

So my point is, with what we have for science and technology of today, you are probably right...you are knowledgeable about this subject and I take your word for it that we can't create artificial consciousness...but to say it is impossible...it is impossible now, I can believe that...but it may be that it could be possible someday. You could probably tell us why it'd be very hard to accomplish such a thing, you could tell us why it is impossible given what we do know and because of our technology and methods of today and tell us what would be needed for it to happen, and perhaps tell us what would be needed for it to happen isn't feasible to have or create...but I reiterate a point...it may be possible one day because we don't know the kind of advancements and breakthroughs we will make in the decades and centuries to come.
32012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / M / 海の家れもん
Offline
Posted 6/8/16
@nanikore2: If you are saying there is no way, period, for consciousness to arise out of a physical system of any kind, then you are denying that humans have consciousness. Or you are saying that humans have something magical that makes them able to think and feel. Is that it?

I believe consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex, compact, interconnected system. It's not programmed, we're not programmed, but we do think and feel, and it's all completely natural. And so there's nothing that makes it impossible for an artificial structure of some kind to have consciousness.

You seem to be stuck on this "programming" thing. Living things, brains, feelings, and consciousness are not programmed. Not with a sequence of logical instructions and transistors. Nature doesn't work that way. It does "program without a program".

For example, there's a way to find a simple solution to the classic travelling salesman problem, something conventional computer programming finds intractable. In a nutshell, you can build a "physical computer" (not really a computer) that quickly gives the solution:


The soap film left will cling to all the spaces in between your stations, connecting them together. The clever bit is that due to the physical process of surface tension, bubble films must always take up the least surface area they can to minimise the physical forces acting on them. This means that your network of soap bubble tracks are as short as they can possibly be. The soap has effectively solved a problem that the poor old on/off electronic switches find so difficult.

http://www.cs4fn.org/optimization/gettingthere.php

Nature doesn't rely on programming.

See also:
Chaos and Complexity - Incompressible Dynamics
17069 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 6/8/16
By nature, something purely mechanical operates on the basis of the coding involved. Sure, it might be capable of interpolating a unique outcome based on two similar outcomes, but i'd hardly call that a consciousness, so in the current, and incorrect current definition of AI, I would agree.

I'd have to push a thought though, what is artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence generally denotes intelligence by mechanical machines, but at this current time, I would have to call that far from a good definition. With cloning on the horizon, and with the growth of nanotechnology, there will be no doubt artificial creatures that are neither biological nor mechanical but rather a blend of both. I would have to call that artificial intelligence, and to that extent, I believe consciousness would be possible. On a side note I could definitely see humans accidentally creating a species superior to humans that ends up wiping us out if we don't eradicate ourselves first.
32828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

foraslan wrote:


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.


I just don't see how that's relevant. Let's back this up a step to the Chinese Room argument itself. How does "everything is an illusion" make the semantic isolation of the room any less?

In other words, how would all this make the individual person inside the Chinese Room understand any more Chinese?


sena3927 wrote:

@nanikore2: If you are saying there is no way, period, for consciousness to arise out of a physical system of any kind, then you are denying that humans have consciousness. Or you are saying that humans have something magical that makes them able to think and feel. Is that it?

I believe consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex, compact, interconnected system. It's not programmed, we're not programmed, but we do think and feel, and it's all completely natural. And so there's nothing that makes it impossible for an artificial structure of some kind to have consciousness.

You seem to be stuck on this "programming" thing. Living things, brains, feelings, and consciousness are not programmed. Not with a sequence of logical instructions and transistors. Nature doesn't work that way. It does "program without a program".

For example, there's a way to find a simple solution to the classic travelling salesman problem, something conventional computer programming finds intractable. In a nutshell, you can build a "physical computer" (not really a computer) that quickly gives the solution:


The soap film left will cling to all the spaces in between your stations, connecting them together. The clever bit is that due to the physical process of surface tension, bubble films must always take up the least surface area they can to minimise the physical forces acting on them. This means that your network of soap bubble tracks are as short as they can possibly be. The soap has effectively solved a problem that the poor old on/off electronic switches find so difficult.

http://www.cs4fn.org/optimization/gettingthere.php

Nature doesn't rely on programming.

See also:
Chaos and Complexity - Incompressible Dynamics


Excuse me, but the topic of the post is about artificial consciousness and not natural consciousness.

There is no way for consciousness to arise out of an artificial system

You use an organism, and you go into cybernetics. This is not what I'm talking about here.
Posted 6/8/16
This thread isn't gonna go anywhere good. Prove me wrong. I dare you. You're all so stubborn. I'm sleepy and I'm feelin' a little bit cynical for a change.
32828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

Dubnoman wrote:

As I said in the other thread...thinking outside the box...you say it is impossible, but you are talking about what we know of today and the technology of today. I can take your word for it when it comes to that. But we don't know what paradigm shifts there will one day be in technology, in creating AI, we don't know what kind of breakthroughs we'll make in science that relate to and can be applied to AI...really, one day we could create AI so advanced compared to the AI of today that it is very different...the AI of today could be very primitive to the AI of decades or centuries from now...it could all really develop and evolve over time.



This is not even about technology anymore but one of bare logic. There is a contradiction in programming without programming. It is an oxymoron.


KnightOfZero1991 wrote:

By nature, something purely mechanical operates on the basis of the coding involved. Sure, it might be capable of interpolating a unique outcome based on two similar outcomes, but i'd hardly call that a consciousness, so in the current, and incorrect current definition of AI, I would agree.

I'd have to push a thought though, what is artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence generally denotes intelligence by mechanical machines, but at this current time, I would have to call that far from a good definition. With cloning on the horizon, and with the growth of nanotechnology, there will be no doubt artificial creatures that are neither biological nor mechanical but rather a blend of both. I would have to call that artificial intelligence, and to that extent, I believe consciousness would be possible. On a side note I could definitely see humans accidentally creating a species superior to humans that ends up wiping us out if we don't eradicate ourselves first.


The use of organics would mean borrowing consciousness.

Cybernetics would be working around the question by borrowing consciousness from the living.


divergentlife wrote:

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....


You use reduction to argue against the argument yet you argue against reduction. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either use a functionalist / reductionist argument, or don't use one.

How does any of that change the semantic isolation of the Chinese Room? How does the room's inhabitant come to know anything more about Chinese?
37531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16
Maybe you are talking strictly about AI...I was thinking maybe one day we could create artificial 'minds' through some means...if we could one day create artificial minds then perhaps they could possess consciousness...AI is its own thing and AIs are not minds and maybe you are saying that when it comes to AI...consciousness can not occur.
32012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / M / 海の家れもん
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/17/16

nanikore2 wrote:


foraslan wrote:


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.


I just don't see how that's relevant. Let's back this up a step to the Chinese Room argument itself. How does "everything is an illusion" make the semantic isolation of the room any less?

In other words, how would all this make the individual person inside the Chinese Room understand any more Chinese?


sena3927 wrote:

@nanikore2: If you are saying there is no way, period, for consciousness to arise out of a physical system of any kind, then you are denying that humans have consciousness. Or you are saying that humans have something magical that makes them able to think and feel. Is that it?

I believe consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex, compact, interconnected system. It's not programmed, we're not programmed, but we do think and feel, and it's all completely natural. And so there's nothing that makes it impossible for an artificial structure of some kind to have consciousness.

You seem to be stuck on this "programming" thing. Living things, brains, feelings, and consciousness are not programmed. Not with a sequence of logical instructions and transistors. Nature doesn't work that way. It does "program without a program".

For example, there's a way to find a simple solution to the classic travelling salesman problem, something conventional computer programming finds intractable. In a nutshell, you can build a "physical computer" (not really a computer) that quickly gives the solution:


The soap film left will cling to all the spaces in between your stations, connecting them together. The clever bit is that due to the physical process of surface tension, bubble films must always take up the least surface area they can to minimise the physical forces acting on them. This means that your network of soap bubble tracks are as short as they can possibly be. The soap has effectively solved a problem that the poor old on/off electronic switches find so difficult.

http://www.cs4fn.org/optimization/gettingthere.php

Nature doesn't rely on programming.

See also:
Chaos and Complexity - Incompressible Dynamics


Excuse me, but the topic of the post is about artificial consciousness and not natural consciousness.

There is no way for consciousness to arise out of an artificial system

You use an organism, and you go into cybernetics. This is not what I'm talking about here.


I never said anything about using an organism. Consciousness can arise out of any sufficiently compact, massively interconnected system.

Did you bother to read the page about how nature programs without a program? The solution to the travelling saleman problem? That demonstrates the limits of logical, sequential programming in relation to how the real world works.

Do you believe that human consciousness exists and is somehow based on the physical properties of matter? If so, then an artificial brain built with something that works like neurons-- it doesn't have to be organic-- could give rise to consciousness.

Either there's something special and supernatural about human consciousness (implying the existence of a magical "soul" not connected to our physical bodies), or artificial consciousness is totally possible.
13791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:

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


While I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "showing that consciousness is independent from programming", my assumption is that what you're saying is that anything that is programmed is inherently not conscious(which implies that programming has no panpsychism) yet you have to show that it is conscious as per your creations which to me sounded like saying anything that is made from something not wet is not wet yet you have to show that something made from non-wet materials is wet(which is doable). What I'm arguing is that programming is not the consciousness itself but it may serve as the hardware for which consciousness runs through. This consciousness is simultaneously assembled like puzzle pieces along with the programming if you arrange them into a correct physical manner which accounts for both intelligence and consciousness. I do not believe that you can show consciousness that is independent of physical matter like programming as I believe that consciousness is a property of matter; a computer simulation with human intelligence is not conscious just like how a simulation of a the inside of a storm does not mean the inside of the machine is wet.
How is this done? IDEK. I could argue the monkey typewriter though.
I'm not sure how well explained this all is but welp, I'm tired.
10123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

Correction it's not possible right now.

It may be in the future consciousness like a human has is not special.

All of this is theoretical and there are many arguments for and against it.

It's stupid to simply believe it's impossible or it is possible you don't know the future or all the variables.

If it's impossible for artificial consciousness to exist then we should not exist as we are not special.

Many professionals will have their own views and theories and that's fine but it's nothing more then a theory


I thought you were going to nuke your account? Or was that drama whoring for attention? Oh well.

To OP. I tend to agree. You can possibly make a robot "learn" from experience and all, but there will always be limits to what can be done. There are some things that will never be able to be done.
32828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

RedExodus wrote:

While I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "showing that consciousness is independent from programming", my assumption is that what you're saying is that anything that is programmed is inherently not conscious(which implies that programming has no panpsychism) yet you have to show that it is conscious as per your creations which to me sounded like saying anything that is made from something not wet is not wet yet you have to show that something made from non-wet materials is wet(which is doable). What I'm arguing is that programming is not the consciousness itself but it may serve as the hardware for which consciousness runs through. This consciousness is simultaneously assembled like puzzle pieces along with the programming if you arrange them into a correct physical manner which accounts for both intelligence and consciousness. I do not believe that you can show consciousness that is independent of physical matter like programming as I believe that consciousness is a property of matter; a computer simulation with human intelligence is not conscious just like how a simulation of a the inside of a storm does not mean the inside of the machine is wet.
How is this done? IDEK. I could argue the monkey typewriter though.
I'm not sure how well explained this all is but welp, I'm tired.


Panpsychism is a particular line of thinking where everything is treated as being conscious. I guess you don't subscribe to it (meaning you don't think of absolutely everything as being conscious).

Programming is not an attribute. It is the activity of encoding instructions. It's not a matter of "wet / not wet".

There are two problems with what you've proposed. First, you can theoretically have all the right physical attributes and still wouldn't get a conscious living being; what you would be making would be a p-zombie, at which point the philosophical question isn't about artificial consciousness anymore but about physicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie . Second, if physicality (hardware) is what makes it conscious then why all the talk of a program (software) in the first place?
27630 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

Dark_Alma wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Correction it's not possible right now.

It may be in the future consciousness like a human has is not special.

All of this is theoretical and there are many arguments for and against it.

It's stupid to simply believe it's impossible or it is possible you don't know the future or all the variables.

If it's impossible for artificial consciousness to exist then we should not exist as we are not special.

Many professionals will have their own views and theories and that's fine but it's nothing more then a theory


I thought you were going to nuke your account? Or was that drama whoring for attention? Oh well.

To OP. I tend to agree. You can possibly make a robot "learn" from experience and all, but there will always be limits to what can be done. There are some things that will never be able to be done.


I was but a few well tons of people begged me to stay I didn't think I was liked that's why I wanted to leave
1227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/17/16

nanikore2 wrote:

I just don't see how that's relevant. Let's back this up a step to the Chinese Room argument itself. How does "everything is an illusion" make the semantic isolation of the room any less?

In other words, how would all this make the individual person inside the Chinese Room understand any more Chinese?


Hmm, I'm afraid I'm still misunderstanding you. I never said that the person in the room understands Chinese. I am suggesting that you could look at the Chinese room experiment in two lights. In one, it simply demonstrates the impossibility of artificially creating a real intelligence or consciousness, whereas in the other, it shows that no consciousness, whether artificial or natural, exists in the typical sense of the word. I.e., our own human version of consciousness is fundamentally the same as the artificial kind.

*EDIT: give me a few minutes before you respond. I need to change this post somewhat, as I think I missed your point again, and I'm trying to think about it a little bit.

2nd edit: Are you trying to limit the experiment to purely linguistic grounds? If so, I don't see the point. We program the grammar and some vocabulary into chatbots, and they 'speak' with what they know. It is the same with us, but our implicit knowledge of grammar is more complete than our scholarly knowledge, so we cannot teach computers as well as we teach our children how to speak.
10123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/17/16


You make me think of those people that say "I want to commit suicide" so you will get some attention!

I don't respect those people though... Pretty sure you made it to get people to say "stay" so your ego gets a boost seeing as you made a thread about a "depressing" subject right before that one. Kek.

If you really wanted to nuke your account you would have just done it. Kinda like the people who try to commit suicide. They don't tell, they just do it ;)

48498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 6/8/16
What is to say that human consciousness does not actually exist? We place an arbitrary value on consciousness but it is not clearly defined and may actually be undefinable. Humans are simply advanced machines and nothing aside from the sum of our sensory perceptions, thinking process to create ideas and chemical processes that provide the illusion of emotion separate us from the engineered self. All are easily repeatable artificially with technology that in the near future can be achieved.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.