Can we rely on fictional representations of AI as conscious in the way we are, or indeed on the fictions of the Singularity presented by Kurzweil? These fictions can only represent what some people imagine and in some cases hope for regarding artificial intelligence.
-
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 8
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
- Status
Can we rely on fictional representations of AI as conscious in the way we are, or indeed on the fictions of the Singularity presented by Kurzweil? These fictions can only represent what some people imagine and in some cases hope for regarding artificial intelligence.
smcder
Paranormal Adept
I'm not sure I completely understand @Soupie's specific use of "naive realism" ... But I believe it is in contrast to Conscious Realism.
"Conscious realism asserts that the objective world, i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a particular observer, consists entirely of conscious agents. Conscious realism is a non-physicalist monism."
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
Thanks. The concepts behind both of these terms remain vague for me. The term 'naive realism' was used well before X used it in presenting his 'Conscious Realism' theory. (I've forgotten that author's name.) I hope @Soupie will further clarify the meaning of both these terms by the various individuals who use them. I'll look for a paper or forum devoted to discussion of these terms and the concepts behind them.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
Because if a system is conscious, then it is a subject and no longer just an object.
I'm more concerned with practicality than philosophy
In that context i find my analogy quite acceptable.
Imagine a world where augmented reality is achieved via a neural upgrade using nanobots that connect you to the internet and feed the images directly to your nervous systems. Occulus rift goggles are museum pieces now. Indeed un augmented reality is the exception in this future
You walk into a store and ask the clerk at the help desk what floor the silk ties are on.
You cannot tell if the clerk is wearing underpants, or possesses consciousness.
At a practical level no one cares. Not the people interacting with this entity or the company that uses it to do the job.
In some ways these entity's will be superior. A visit to the doctors office for example. An SI doctor will be loaded with all the latest medical information, able to cross match your medical data and symptoms with millions of other medical records and demographic data.
The question of consciousness will be no more significant than the question of underpants.
Driverless Cars Could Reduce Traffic Fatalities by Up to 90%, Says Report
Watch a Tesla Self-Driving Car Predict and Avoid a Gruesome Crash Before It Happens
If these statistics prove to be a true indicator of the future, would you prefer your cabbie to be a biological conscious driver or an AI with a 90 percent less chance of wrapping you around a street pole ?
Like a human baby. ? Is it unethical to create those too ?
Here is a link to the first reference provided in my search concerning the definition of 'naieve realism' and includes a half-dozen links to related statements, proposals, claims, etc.
http://anandavala.info/article/What-is-naive-realism.pdf
This might be a good place for us to begin, though it seems to me that 'naieve realism' was already overcome by Kant and Husserl and that almost no one pursuing consciousness studies fails to understand the meaning of what they explained concerning the nature of the
phenomenal appearances of things as pathways to understanding the nature of things encountered by aware and consciousness beings. So the term might by now have outlived its usefulness. Except for the author of the 'Conscious Realism' theory, who seems to me to be more interested in metaphysics than in the ontological structure of being.
http://anandavala.info/article/What-is-naive-realism.pdf
This might be a good place for us to begin, though it seems to me that 'naieve realism' was already overcome by Kant and Husserl and that almost no one pursuing consciousness studies fails to understand the meaning of what they explained concerning the nature of the
phenomenal appearances of things as pathways to understanding the nature of things encountered by aware and consciousness beings. So the term might by now have outlived its usefulness. Except for the author of the 'Conscious Realism' theory, who seems to me to be more interested in metaphysics than in the ontological structure of being.
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Donald Hoffman
... and Kant definitely comes up in critiques of Hoffman's theory of Conscious Realism.
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
You overrate the internet in spades. You seem to see it as a guide to all human knowledge and insight. Here is a timely statement by Noam Chomsky:
www.alternet.org/media/noam-chomsky-random-exploration-through-internet-cult-generator
Good. Can you link us to one or two of these critiques? Thanks.
Its only just over 10,000 days old. Still taking its baby steps.
Digital Life in 2025
These experts foresee an ambient information environment where accessing the Internet will be effortless and most people will tap into it so easily it will flow through their lives “like electricity.” They predict mobile, wearable, and embedded computing will be tied together in the Internet of Things, allowing people and their surroundings to tap into artificial intelligence-enhanced cloud-based information storage and sharing. As Dan Lynch, founder of Interop and former director of computing facilities at SRI International, wrote, “The most useful impact is the ability to connect people. From that, everything flows.”
To a notable extent, the experts agree on the technology change that lies ahead, even as they disagree about its ramifications. Most believe there will be:
- A global, immersive, invisible, ambient networked computing environment built through the continued proliferation of smart sensors, cameras, software, databases, and massive data centers in a world-spanning information fabric known as the Internet of Things.
- “Augmented reality” enhancements to the real-world input that people perceive through the use of portable/wearable/implantable technologies.
- Disruption of business models established in the 20th century (most notably impacting finance, entertainment, publishers of all sorts, and education).
- Tagging, databasing, and intelligent analytical mapping of the physical and social realms.
David Clark, a senior research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, noted, “Devices will more and more have their own patterns of communication, their own ‘social networks,’ which they use to share and aggregate information, and undertake automatic control and activation. More and more, humans will be in a world in which decisions are being made by an active set of cooperating devices. The Internet (and computer-mediated communication in general) will become more pervasive but less explicit and visible. It will, to some extent, blend into the background of all we do.”
Joe Touch, director at the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute, predicted, “The Internet will shift from the place we find cat videos to a background capability that will be a seamless part of how we live our everyday lives. We won’t think about ‘going online’ or ‘looking on the Internet’ for something — we’ll just be online, and just look.”
Last edited by a moderator:
smcder
Paranormal Adept
I've not found any formal discussion of CR, other than Hoffman's papers themselves. There are a number of popular articles on it and Kant is mentioned in some and I think there's a blog post that mentions it.
May take a bit to find.
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
smcder
Paranormal Adept
@Constance
Hoffman mentions Kant in his paper and Kant mentioned in the comments here:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
Hoffman mentions Kant in his paper and Kant mentioned in the comments here:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
This article, "Objects of Perception," in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy does a pretty good job of foregrounding the major issues in various theories concerning perception. Nothing yet on Donald Thompson's proposals.
Perception, Objects of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Perception, Objects of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Naïve realism - Wikipedia
This also distinguishes: Naive/Scientific Realism and looks at this in terms of Direct/Indirect Realism
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
This also distinguishes: Naive/Scientific Realism and looks at this in terms of Direct/Indirect Realism
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
@Soupie, I think you might find the article linked below, concerning perceptual illusions (esp. those devised as graphics to test aspects of perception), to be very interesting.
http://www.ianbphillips.com/uploads/2/2/9/4/22946642/naive_realism_and_the_science_of_illusion.pdf
Very helpful, especially this section:
"Naïve and scientific realism or direct and indirect realism
It is not uncommon to think of naïve realism as distinct from scientific realism, which states that the universe contains just those properties that feature in a scientific description of it, not properties like colour per se but merely objects that reflect certain wavelengths owing to their microscopic surface texture. This lack of supervenience of experience on the physical world has influenced many thinkers to reject naïve realism as a physical theory.[12]
One should add, however, that naïve realism does not claim that reality is only what we see, hear etc.. Likewise, scientific realism does not claim that reality is only what can be described by fundamental physics. It follows that the relevant distinction to make is not between naïve and scientific realism but between direct and indirect realism.
The direct realist claims that the experience of a sunset, for instance, is the real sunset that we directly experience. The indirect realist claims that our relation to reality is indirect, so the experience of a sunset is a subjective copy of what really is radiation as described by physics. But the direct realist does not deny that the sunset is radiation; the experience has a hierarchical structure,[13] and the radiation is part of what amounts to the direct experience.
An example of a scientific realist is John Locke, who held the world only contains the primary qualities that feature in a corpuscularian scientific account of the world (see corpuscular theory), and that other properties were entirely subjective, depending for their existence upon some perceiver who can observe the objects.[1]
The modern philosopher of science Howard Sankey argues for a form of scientific realism which has commonsense realism as one of its foundations.[14]"
http://www.ianbphillips.com/uploads/2/2/9/4/22946642/naive_realism_and_the_science_of_illusion.pdf
Very helpful, especially this section:
"Naïve and scientific realism or direct and indirect realism
It is not uncommon to think of naïve realism as distinct from scientific realism, which states that the universe contains just those properties that feature in a scientific description of it, not properties like colour per se but merely objects that reflect certain wavelengths owing to their microscopic surface texture. This lack of supervenience of experience on the physical world has influenced many thinkers to reject naïve realism as a physical theory.[12]
One should add, however, that naïve realism does not claim that reality is only what we see, hear etc.. Likewise, scientific realism does not claim that reality is only what can be described by fundamental physics. It follows that the relevant distinction to make is not between naïve and scientific realism but between direct and indirect realism.
The direct realist claims that the experience of a sunset, for instance, is the real sunset that we directly experience. The indirect realist claims that our relation to reality is indirect, so the experience of a sunset is a subjective copy of what really is radiation as described by physics. But the direct realist does not deny that the sunset is radiation; the experience has a hierarchical structure,[13] and the radiation is part of what amounts to the direct experience.
An example of a scientific realist is John Locke, who held the world only contains the primary qualities that feature in a corpuscularian scientific account of the world (see corpuscular theory), and that other properties were entirely subjective, depending for their existence upon some perceiver who can observe the objects.[1]
The modern philosopher of science Howard Sankey argues for a form of scientific realism which has commonsense realism as one of its foundations.[14]"
You and @Soupie, as I recall, both linked to some blogs re Hoffman's theory in Part 6 or 7. I'll search here for those posts and also do another search for discussions of this theory.
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Yes ... one was on Quantum Mysticism. I can find it.
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
- Status