- Nov 14, 2019 at 11:31 pm #3618754
And sure some animals have consciousness – certain monkeys, dolphins and I believe fish have passed the mirror test (not cats or dogs) also pigs are high on the levels of consciousness scale – and why would ai using biomatter as hardware not be able to be conscious? It’s made from the same like animals and humans so why not conscious? – and modern machine learning is exactly ment to mimic human type learning – not in a straight forward but a parallel processing kind of wayNov 14, 2019 at 11:32 pm #3618755
Another problem, our self-consciousness can be wrong, e.g. when we are lost (while hiking; we might be convinced of and “know” where we are, but mistaken, as we later realize).
Last Sunday, got on the metro for regular long journey, sat, almost immediately got moved to another car by my wife, and after dozing, was convinced we were going the wrong way – my sense of which direction we where traveling was telling me the opposite of what I literally knew to be true. This internal effect which I was observing lasted for 20 or 30 minutes, before coming right.Nov 14, 2019 at 11:36 pm #3618756
No, I don’t agree; even though machine learning is getting incredibly sophisticated, I do not believe it involves or invokes self-awareness. That is a qualitative difference, in my opinion. An immense difference.Nov 14, 2019 at 11:37 pm #3618757
I don’t see why being wrong is a problem for AI ? Modern non linear AI when developed Futher also on a material/hardware base has the same “error” of maybe being wrong – it’s a simple matter of judgement of inputs from previous experience induced to certain more of less conscious”theories” or ways of finding you way based on sensory inputs – an AI can easily have the same structure of decision makingNov 14, 2019 at 11:38 pm #3618758
“Love is a feeling whereas consciousness is the subject which experience this feeling/emotion”
I tend to think that they’re actually one and the same. Sorry, it’s the Buddhist in me…interdependent co-arising and what have you.Nov 14, 2019 at 11:38 pm #3618759
The problem of being wrong is concerning human consciousness, not AI.Nov 14, 2019 at 11:40 pm #3618760
Sure AI is still not self aware – but given time and most importantly complexity of structure (meaning not just calculational power, but emotions, goals, empathy, body and so on ) and it will become – right now the focus is mainly on task solving – like language or math – but not really general intelligence and full “bodied” mimicry of the human/animal way of beingNov 14, 2019 at 11:42 pm #3618761
Agree with that part of Wisner’s comments, subscribe to cosmos being conscious, as in Hinduism/Buddhism, otherwise the distinction between human consciousness and physical world is impossible to bridge…Nov 14, 2019 at 11:47 pm #3618762
“…I do not believe it involves or invokes self-awareness.”
I don’t either. But what about faking self-awareness? Would that necessarily be so hard? Point being, as long as it feels real enough to a human, does it matter?Nov 14, 2019 at 11:49 pm #3618763
<p style=”text-align: right;”>And how does panpsychism explain anything? Or how can you prove it ? And what do you mean by “conscious universe”? So there is a material side and a non material side to everything? And everything is equally conscious? So we are all the same ? – human consciousness is not a metaphysical entity – it’s an emergant property of a complex neural network -</p>Nov 14, 2019 at 11:55 pm #3618765
Meditative realization, that is how.Nov 14, 2019 at 11:56 pm #3618766
What Schuon would term the “intuition”. Direct apprehension.Nov 14, 2019 at 11:56 pm #3618767
“Meditative realization, that is how.”
Answer of the day!Nov 15, 2019 at 12:00 am #3618768
Yes…. What do we need science for when we have intuition and meditative realisation ….Nov 15, 2019 at 12:04 am #3618770jscottBPL Member
@bookLocale: Northern California
Descarte’s I think therefore I am is a rock bottom demonstration of conscious existence that is undeniable for the thinker. You can doubt absolutely everything, but you can’t doubt that you’re thinking. Thinking requires existence. Even if you lie to yourself…someone is positing the deception. And that someone (me) has consciousness.
A computer can’t perform this act, this reduction to consciousness. Moreover, a computer can’t comprehend death or existence in any way. Ever hear of a computer mourning? It can’t. Or being delighted with its existence? No. You can program a computer to lie, or to say that it’s dead or alive, but it can’t discriminate between life and death.
i got in a long discussion with someone who insisted that autonomous cars make decisions–that is, as performed acts. I suggested they were simply running an alogrithmic program. By the way these so called decision making cars will run over a child or a skateboard and not be able to tell why there’s a difference between the two. gotta go eat!
p.s. anybody bring up Blade Runner?Nov 15, 2019 at 12:10 am #3618772
“Intuition” is used by the traditional scholars in a specific way, and does not equate with contemporary common usage. There is no implied debasement of science, just a recognition that science goes so far, and no further; but direct apprehension of what Taimni would term the ultimate reality is possible. I need to work…Nov 15, 2019 at 12:19 am #3618776
Ok, so I’m about to bite off way more than I can chew as I’m a lowly artist and teacher…
…but as I understand it, in quantum mechanics a particle does not have a fixed location in space or shape until it is observed, directly bringing into question the extent that consciousness itself influences matter, that the two are not in fact separate, or perhaps not as separate as we may believe. Also known as “quantum entanglement”. I have been reading and listening to (and as a layman trying desperately to understand!) Caltech professor Sean Carrol’s work on this.
From a Buddhist perspective, it’s fascinating, as- like Buddhism- it challenges the notion of perceiver vs. perceived, instead pointing to an interdependent or mutual co-arising. Perceiver and perceived become one and the same, not separate. It’s a potentially big challenge to the purely materialist/reductionist view and it is not at all without basis in science, namely quantum mechanics.Nov 15, 2019 at 12:23 am #3618777Jerry AdamsBPL Member
@retiredjerryLocale: Oregon and Washington
“i got in a long discussion with someone who insisted that autonomous cars make decisions–that is, as performed acts. I suggested they were simply running an alogrithmic program. By the way these so called decision making cars will run over a child or a skateboard and not be able to tell why there’s a difference between the two.”
I think making decisions is actually an algorithmic program at some low level
There is nothing magical about human brains
We can dissect brains and see that there’s all this stuff in there. We haven’t figured it all out. I assume we will eventually.Nov 15, 2019 at 12:33 am #3618778jscottBPL Member
@bookLocale: Northern California
Jerry, I’ll initially respond by saying that nothing about consciousness (or the brain) is an algorithmic program, at least because such programs are entirely binary and biology (and consciousness) aren’t. Our cells aren’t the biological equivalent of bits of zeros and ones.
Fascinating discussion but I gotta run. maybe.
by the way the ‘nothing magical about human brains’ …or existence?…is part of what gets me worked up about this. I worry that this tendency to model human consciousness and life after computers is extraordinarally reductive and cheapening. This isn’t aimed at Jerry!Nov 15, 2019 at 12:35 am #3618780
“I think therefore I am.”
Now take away my senses, and what would I base my thoughts upon? What if I were born without my senses? How then would I even know I was alive? And yet I would still be alive, I would surely exist; others could experience me and yet I could not experience myself.
Would I think in the language of God (interesting idea!)? Could I recognize colors as such?
But ultimately, could I have any context for possibly understanding that what I was experiencing was the result of a single being’s mind and not the consciousness of the universe itself?
Is this what it feels like to be an amoeba?
Time for a walk!Nov 15, 2019 at 12:46 am #3618786Ken ThompsonBPL Member
@hereLocale: Right there
It all happens between our ears. What is proof?Nov 15, 2019 at 12:56 am #3618790Jerry AdamsBPL Member
@retiredjerryLocale: Oregon and Washington
brains are analog. rather than circuits with two values, the neurons can have a range of values.
but you can get the same results of an analog neuron with some number of bits.
there are a lot of neurons and synapses in the brain so it might be impossible to get a big enough digital computer to just brute force simulate them
there’s a lot of redundancy in the brain, so you shouldn’t have to simulate every neuron and synapse, maybe it’s possible to get a digital computer model that’s small enough to be implementableNov 15, 2019 at 2:12 am #3618803Elliott WolinBPL Member
@ewolinLocale: Hampton Roads, Virginia
Clarification about quantum mechanics and consciousness, somewhat simplified (I’m a retired physicist).
The notion of “observation” does not require a conscious observer, it’s a bad choice of word since it has often been misinterpreted in this way. Similarly, “measurement”, a better choice perhaps, does not need a conscious measurer.
The “observing” or “measuring” mechanism can be any influence outside the system that causes the system to change its state (sometimes called “collapse its wave function”). This can be something as simple as the system coming into the proximity of another particle and interacting with it.Nov 15, 2019 at 2:46 am #3618808
Thank you Elliot. I’m muddling through this in a highly imperfect way!
I guess I interpret observation as implying a conscious observer, but I can see the distinction, or the inaccuracy of saying “consciousness” can collapse the wave function. But it doesn’t rule out the conscious observer….
Ive been slowly picking my way through Sean Carrol’s Something Deeply Hidden.Nov 15, 2019 at 11:35 am #3618929
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.