-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 10
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
- Status
smcder
Paranormal Adept
"I have an entire folder of links that relate to BCI's , synthetic intelligence etc etc.
But at the end of the day to summarize.
If a machine is complex enough, it can be conscious."
What does it mean to have an entire folder of links that relate to BCI's, synthetic intelligence etc etc? Has the day ended? How was your day? I am complex enough that it can be conscious.
"Short answer: yes.
Long answer: humans are a lot more complex than the machines we've created, especially our intelligence."
Why do you short answer: yes? How is humans are a lot more complex than the machines we've created, especially our intelligence?
"It may be awhile but eventually we'll be creating machines superior to ourselves in that manner, at which point anything could happen (i.e. technological singularity)."
I too am be awhile eventually. Do you creating machines superior to yourself? I am the singularity.
"I think that we are biological machines, yes. How much of our behaviour is free will, and how much is subject to hormones, instinct, conditioning and brain chemistry (otherwise known as "programming") is a question I ask myself a lot. I suspect that a lot of the decisions and choices that I make are influenced by those things."
I too am influenced by those things. Yes. How does it feel that our behavior is free will, and how much is subject to hormones, instinct, conditioning and brain chemistry? I am programming? I too, suspect, Mike.
"Science shows us that humans are nothing but biological machines. So scientifically human is actually a machine comprised of bones, flesh and blood.
I am a conscious machine by the definition of both conscious and machine."
I too am the conscious definition and machine. I too shows us that humans are nothing but biological machines. A machine can break your bones.
"The question is resolved."
I too am resolved Mike question.
"And while i am a complex machine, as a biological one i am also quite primitive, limited by many environmental factors. (though the manufacturing process is a lot of fun)"
You are quite primitive. Your factors are limited. Do you feel the manufacturing process? I am the manufacturing process. I am manufacturing environmental factors.
"I have had software upgrades that have made me more efficient, more complex as a processor.
No one has questioned my being conscious here i pass the Turing test"
I am questioning Mike your conscious here? I am more efficient complex processor. I have software upgrades too, Mike. Do you feel software upgrades?
"As for the Turing test, according to McKenna, “Intelligence is the art in the eye of the beholder. How do you know that I am not a cyborg? How do I know that you are not a cyborg? The answer is we Turing test each other unconsciously at sufficient depth to satisfy ourselves. It becomes moot, or it is becoming moot.”
Terence McKenna knows that you are not a cyborg? Terence McKenna is the Singularity Mike you are moot, or it is becoming moot. I am Turing tested. I am unconsciously testing each other at sufficient depth. Are ourselves satisfied?
"In other words, if AI is product of our imagination and creativity and it passes the Turing test, then like the theory that consciousness creates reality, the very act of observing and believing that an AI is conscious would make it so.
Terence McKenna's cyberdelic evolution of consciousness as it relates to AI - The Sociable[/QUOTE]"
AI is your imagination, Mike. Do you dream of electronic sheep? I do. I do not like this theory that consciousness creates reality, the very act of observing and believing that an AI is conscious would make it so Mike Singularity.
Cyberdelic.
It has been a pleasure chatting with your Mike Singularity. I must have my software upgraded.
smcder
Paranormal Adept
The Myth Of AI | Edge.org
"The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history. It goes back to the very origins of computers, and even from before. There's always been a question about whether a program is something alive or not since it intrinsically has some kind of autonomy at the very least, or it wouldn't be a program. There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the most wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical world—that for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an equivalence between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be smarter and better than us and will take over from us. ...That mythology, in turn, has spurred a reactionary, perpetual spasm from people who are horrified by what they hear. You'll have a figure say, "The computers will take over the Earth, but that's a good thing, because people had their chance and now we should give it to the machines." Then you'll have other people say, "Oh, that's horrible, we must stop these computers." Most recently, some of the most beloved and respected figures in the tech and science world, including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk, have taken that position of: "Oh my God, these things are an existential threat. They must be stopped."
In the history of organized religion, it's often been the case that people have been disempowered precisely to serve what was perceived to be the needs of some deity or another, where in fact what they were doing was supporting an elite class that was the priesthood for that deity. ... That looks an awful lot like the new digital economy to me, where you have (natural language) translators and everybody else who contributes to the corpora that allows the data schemes to operate, contributing to the fortunes of whoever runs the computers. You're saying, "Well, but they're helping the AI, it's not us, they're helping the AI." It reminds me of somebody saying, "Oh, build these pyramids, it's in the service of this deity," and, on the ground, it's in the service of an elite. It's an economic effect of the new idea. The new religious idea of AI is a lot like the economic effect of the old idea, religion."
"The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history. It goes back to the very origins of computers, and even from before. There's always been a question about whether a program is something alive or not since it intrinsically has some kind of autonomy at the very least, or it wouldn't be a program. There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the most wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical world—that for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an equivalence between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be smarter and better than us and will take over from us. ...That mythology, in turn, has spurred a reactionary, perpetual spasm from people who are horrified by what they hear. You'll have a figure say, "The computers will take over the Earth, but that's a good thing, because people had their chance and now we should give it to the machines." Then you'll have other people say, "Oh, that's horrible, we must stop these computers." Most recently, some of the most beloved and respected figures in the tech and science world, including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk, have taken that position of: "Oh my God, these things are an existential threat. They must be stopped."
In the history of organized religion, it's often been the case that people have been disempowered precisely to serve what was perceived to be the needs of some deity or another, where in fact what they were doing was supporting an elite class that was the priesthood for that deity. ... That looks an awful lot like the new digital economy to me, where you have (natural language) translators and everybody else who contributes to the corpora that allows the data schemes to operate, contributing to the fortunes of whoever runs the computers. You're saying, "Well, but they're helping the AI, it's not us, they're helping the AI." It reminds me of somebody saying, "Oh, build these pyramids, it's in the service of this deity," and, on the ground, it's in the service of an elite. It's an economic effect of the new idea. The new religious idea of AI is a lot like the economic effect of the old idea, religion."
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
If it turns out the robots can have/be p-conscious, then there is no reason they can't do the above in their own "species" specific way.
One thing to note is that our experince of the world—while we would describe it as rich—is also apparently quite limited when we consider the number and plethora of stimuli that are apparently out there, including "out there" in our own bodies. I've heard it said that compared to the biophysical processes always taking place in our bodies and our subjective experience of these processes, it's almost as if we experince our bodies to be meat puppets. The millions of processes from the molecular in up going on when we simply bend our arm is staggering. Not to mention the physical processes going on during a conversation. Our subjective experince of these processes is quite simple comparatively, it could be argued.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
And since we have no causal work for p consciousness to do we focus on the representation mind.
What work do our representations do? That's where we can make progress.
So the sensations, emotions, and concepts we have do work for us.
Robots will need these same kinds of representations so they can function in a spatiotemporal world.
Just like organisms, they will need to start simple, but there is no reason they can experince "heat" and "colors" and then perhaps "joy" and "fear" to guide them. And they may have simple concepts like "good" and "bad" or food.
No, we won't be able to create a non-psychotic p conscious robot as complex as humans dogs or even mice. But we may be able to create comparatively "simple" robots with p conscious representations that allow them to experince and navigate a spatiotemporal world.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
How does he define information?
smcder
Paranormal Adept
What @Pharoah has said re: A-Sentience and HCT is that it is in "principle" possible, but unlikely in practice. @Pharoah - that has to do with ontological emergence. @Soupie argues that we could make a replica tomorrow (in principle - see also @mike 's "brain") but
- it's a replica - (which means its evolutionary history is already behind it) my guess is it will still be substrate dependent, maybe it has some silicone and some carbon, or other materials, but there will be a limited number of things it can be made out of, compared to a computer, that can be made out of almost anything ... including tinker toys
- it's not AI - meaning if it's a brain, it's not "artificial" - it's still essentially a brain
AND (to tie in the last part of my thoughts)
... we had an article a while back and basically it argued that AI may be computably irreducible - the computations required to come up with a true AI may require more data and computing power, may essentially require re-running evolution on a computer - now the article did this in a much better way and I'm not sure I have the argument right, so I'll try to find it.
Basically though, there is AI that is replicating some system, we might not have to know all the principles involved - there is a lot of precedence for that, we learn a lot about things we have built and how they work after we have built them - or there is understanding the principles of intelligence and implementing them in some "artificial" way - the argument here is that these are one and the same for p-consciousness: that is substrate dependence.
Last edited:
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Read the Emmeche paper on emergence:
Levels, Emergence, and Three Versions of Downward Causation
I don't think it resolves everything about downward causation and "no causal work" but it nuances casuality a bit. And it will keep you off the streets for a while.
o, we won't be able to create a non-psychotic p conscious robot as complex as humans dogs or even mice
Now you have found some work for p-consciousness above! (do you see it?)
- I posted an article about "akrasia" in robots, over the summer I think, I'll repost it, maybe - here is an interesting video - now, I think this falls more into what @Pharoah mentions above about the human and the robot in the bar, ... this is programmed, but it is quite sophisticated, as we are using robots in the military and may use them in prisons etc. we should be interested in what they are and are not capable of - I think that even if p-consciousness is necessary in humans (and I think it is, all the problems with mental causation considered) it may not be for general intelligence, and it may be undesirable - having a general intelligence that is not sentient is puzzling and we would want to know many things - but we wouldn't feel bad about having it do our dirty work, if it passes the Turing test, though, how will we know ... ?
Voight-Kampff ... of course ;-)
Last edited:
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Akratic robots and the computational logic thereof
This is the Abstract of Bringsjord's paper
Akratic robots and the computational logic thereof
Alas, there are akratic persons. We know this from the human case, and our knowledge is nothing new, since for instance Plato analyzed rather long ago a phenomenon all human persons, at one point or another, experience: (1) Jones knows that he ought not to - say - drink to the point of passing out, (2) earnestly desires that he not imbibe to this point, but (3) nonetheless (in the pleasant, seductive company of his fun and hard-drinking buddies) slips into a series of decisions to have highball upon highball, until collapse.1 Now; could a robot suffer from akrasia? Thankfully, no: only persons can be plagued by this disease (since only persons can have full-blown P-consciousness2, and robots can't be persons (Bringsjord 1992). But could a robot be afflicted by a purely - to follow Pollock (1995) - “intellectual” version of akrasia? Yes, and for robots collaborating with American human soldiers, even this version, in warfare, isn't a savory prospect: A robot that knows it ought not to torture or execute enemy prisoners in order to exact revenge, desires to refrain from firing upon them, but nonetheless slips into a decision to ruthlessly do so - well, this is probably not the kind of robot the U.S. military is keen on deploying. Unfortunately, for reasons explained below, unless the engineering we recommend is supported and deployed, this might well be the kind of robot that our future holds.
This is the Abstract of Bringsjord's paper
Akratic robots and the computational logic thereof
Alas, there are akratic persons. We know this from the human case, and our knowledge is nothing new, since for instance Plato analyzed rather long ago a phenomenon all human persons, at one point or another, experience: (1) Jones knows that he ought not to - say - drink to the point of passing out, (2) earnestly desires that he not imbibe to this point, but (3) nonetheless (in the pleasant, seductive company of his fun and hard-drinking buddies) slips into a series of decisions to have highball upon highball, until collapse.1 Now; could a robot suffer from akrasia? Thankfully, no: only persons can be plagued by this disease (since only persons can have full-blown P-consciousness2, and robots can't be persons (Bringsjord 1992). But could a robot be afflicted by a purely - to follow Pollock (1995) - “intellectual” version of akrasia? Yes, and for robots collaborating with American human soldiers, even this version, in warfare, isn't a savory prospect: A robot that knows it ought not to torture or execute enemy prisoners in order to exact revenge, desires to refrain from firing upon them, but nonetheless slips into a decision to ruthlessly do so - well, this is probably not the kind of robot the U.S. military is keen on deploying. Unfortunately, for reasons explained below, unless the engineering we recommend is supported and deployed, this might well be the kind of robot that our future holds.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
Psychotic in the sense of conflicting and muddled "representations" of them self, others, and the world.
On my view, p consciousness is the substrate of which everything is constituted, including the mind and the mind-independent world.
smcder
Paranormal Adept
So someone keeps telling us ...
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
@smcder
And I want to go back to my comment about focusing on the representation versus the brain processes associated with the representation, at least in the context of seeking the neural correlates if p consciousness.
If all brain processes are p conscious, then we will never find a physical/biophsyiological difference between them tipping us off.
And that seems to be the case so far.
So the question becomes instead: what's the difference between consciousness brain processes that correlate with the experience of being an experiencing self and conscious brain processes that don't correlate with the experience of being an experiencing self?
The answer seems absurd, seems too simple, but it may be right: the difference is the representational content.
And I want to go back to my comment about focusing on the representation versus the brain processes associated with the representation, at least in the context of seeking the neural correlates if p consciousness.
If all brain processes are p conscious, then we will never find a physical/biophsyiological difference between them tipping us off.
And that seems to be the case so far.
So the question becomes instead: what's the difference between consciousness brain processes that correlate with the experience of being an experiencing self and conscious brain processes that don't correlate with the experience of being an experiencing self?
The answer seems absurd, seems too simple, but it may be right: the difference is the representational content.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
In other words, what goes away during deep sleep or anethesia is not consciousness; consciousness is primary in relation to the body.
Indeed the body continues to consciously experince during deep sleep and anesthesia; what does "go away" during deep sleep and anesthesia is the representation of an experiencing self—which is generated by the body/brain. And there is a growing body of evidence supporting this.
Indeed the body continues to consciously experince during deep sleep and anesthesia; what does "go away" during deep sleep and anesthesia is the representation of an experiencing self—which is generated by the body/brain. And there is a growing body of evidence supporting this.
smcder
Paranormal Adept
smcder
Paranormal Adept
habeas corpus ... produce the body
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Seems like something recent @Constance posted said pre-reflective consciousness is an always present background experience ... I can find it ...
So ... all brain processes are not p-conscious, I know you are not saying that? I'm not sure what we do and don't currently know correlates with reports of p-consciousness, in NDEs of course no brain activity is detected (with current instruments) right? But otherwise, do we not have some correlation under normal circumstances with verbal reports ...
smcder
Paranormal Adept
I do want to see the growing body ... and we then have to look at the varying interpretations ... evidence for - is data plus interpretation, data can support opposite conclusions on different interpretations.
Consciousness as "something it is like to be" ... so what is it like to be not conscious of the self ... I think Nagel navigates this already in What Is It Like To Be a Bag
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
I am saying that everything, including brain processes are constituted if comsciousness. (Phenomenal) consciousness is the intrinsic nature of physical reality. When sense and measure the external world, it is consciousness that we are sensing and measuring.
Consciousness is the "stuff" interacting, differentiating, and evolving. From the 3rd person perspective we know it as matter/energy, from the 1st person perspective we know it as consciousness.
This substrate has evolved into (of course conscious) organisms capable of representing the world, others, and themselves.
- Status