Will AI teach us that Objectivism is correct?

[dream_weaver]

45 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But a sentient being, has to be alive. It is life that requires it to identify based on reality.

How would one distinguish between a man-made sentient being, (presumable not of sexual reproduction) and programmatic replication of the capacity of identification? 

[Easy Truth]

53 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

How would one distinguish between a man-made sentient being, (presumable not of sexual reproduction) and programmatic replication of the capacity of identification? 

The question to be answered would be does it want to be happy. And before that is "does it want", or "can it want".

The only way would be if a human can transfer themself into "it", and then back. But only that human would know for sure.

Unless we have telepathy where that transfer between the human and the machine can be confirmed through others experiencing it (through telepathy).

But the problem is "our" human consciousness, would be put in a deterministic machine. If our brain is a deterministic machine, then we should not have free will. But we do.

So to make the argument for the eventual existence of such a machine is to argue that free will is an illusion.

 

[dream_weaver]

20 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

So to make the argument for the eventual existence of such a machine is to argue that free will is an illusion.

Or that choice/free-will cannot be programmed. I'll leave that to the programmers to demonstrate. in the meantime...

[Eiuol]

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The question of motive has to be answered without magical/mystical/fictional assertions about things that WILL exist

I'm not sure that you're thinking about it in the right way. This is hypothetical thinking, that's all. 

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not sure that you're thinking about it in the right way. This is hypothetical thinking, that's all. 

Yes, but the hypothesis has to based on something that is possible.

I may have to amend my position on the issue of values. I may be thinking that a machine can never have "moral values". But maybe Grames and maybe Greg have a point, it can have values. Right off the bat, collection of data is something it is going to do, as if it were motivated.

Now does that mean it has that as a value? Maybe and maybe not. Sort of like ascribing "love" to two magnets. As if they love each other, attracted to each other etc.

It is as if this machine we are talking about has values from the outside similar to a plant that wants to grow toward the sun. We conclude that based on it's behavior. But then, that is not enough. As in, water pours downward, it acts as if it wants to do that, but cause and effect does not mean the cause wants the effect. Or does it?

[Grames]

On 2/1/2023 at 5:47 PM, Easy Truth said:

You and Grames have been watching too many Harry Potter movies. Of course I am saying it is deterministic. They are MACHINES. 

The idea of "advanced enough" is preposterous. Our writing is not advanced enough to turn fiction into reality ... but some day ...

We are not advanced enough to realize that in some parts of the universe 2+2 is 5.5674

The idea of an animal with volition is preposterous until you concede that humans are animals.

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, Grames said:

The idea of an animal with volition is preposterous until you concede that humans are animals.

Are you conceding that human animals are machines with volition?

[dream_weaver]

Alive and ticking

The idea that nature is a humming, complex, clockwork machine has been around for centuries. Is it due for a revival?

[Boydstun]

Rand writes in her mature philosophy “Your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver” (AS 1020).* This line is consistent on its face with Descartes’ doctrine that the human body is a machine, although Rand would contradict Descartes’ accompanying picture in which all nonhuman animals are devoid of consciousness. Rand had benefit of our diesel-electric locomotives, our particle physics, our chemistry, and our biology, profoundly enriching, over the four centuries since Descartes, what is “mechanical,” what is a “machine,” and what is mind in animals and humans. We can more easily see than Descartes could see the driver of the bodily machine as requiring the brain not only as means for sensory reception, imagination, and direction of the body, but as means of the driver’s own and only existence. With advance of science and without Descartes’ religious constraints, bolstered by his radical divide of extension and thought, we bind the entire driver: with brain and with perceptions of world and body and with the life and mortality of the body. Rand shares a pair of errors with Descartes in supposing that automatic mechanical sensory and motor responses cannot be in error—cannot present a falsehood apart from subsequent judgment—and that purely mechanical mind could not be free.(<–from Foundational Frames: Descartes and Rand)

*Mind can be not only controller of the instrument, but at the same time, the song of the instrument. "I am my own song and the harp on which it is played" (Anthem, 1938, p.236 ; cf. Phaedo 85e–86d, 93a–95a and De Anima 407b27–408a29).

Veridical perception, I say, is neuronal system indicating in consciousness things as they are. Illusions are neuronal system indicating in consciousness things in some ways as they are not. I say percepts are leaders to reality, due to our constitution. Percepts not only present. They indicate, due to our constitution. Their character of automatically indicating in consciousness is what makes percepts components in empirical cognition.  The proverbial straight stick partially in air and partially in water indicates a bent stick. Understanding how it comes to look bent does nothing to change the circumstance that the perceptual presentation is misleading (contra Branden 2009 [c.1968], 47–48; Kelley [. . .]; Peikoff [. . .]). The stick’s looking bent is not on account of some inference we have made, not even an inference unconsciously made.

[dream_weaver]

Human Intelligence in Liquid Form

Robert Tracinski 

I have a new piece up at Discourse taking on our recurring fascination with the prospect of a robot apocalypse, in which humans are replaced, superseded, and eventually eaten by artificial intelligence.

[Easy Truth]

From the article above. Basically summarized my position:

The essence of the argument is this: “AI lacks three things we have that make us special and that a machine by its very nature cannot have: consciousness, motivation, and volition.”

[Eiuol]

40 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

AI lacks three things we have that make us special and that a machine by its very nature cannot have: consciousness, motivation, and volition.

Which is just an argument that the concept "machine" would not work. You can argue that something doesn't fit the definition, but that doesn't mean you can argue that the definition can't change as you discover more about the nature of the referent. You could have argued that dolphins are not mammals because they live in the water, many centuries ago, but the concept 'mammal' has been made better over time. 

In terms of what you're saying, if a "conscious machine" were ever created (since consciousness exists, you know that it could be created somehow) you would need a new concept besides machine, or you would have to change the definition of machine. 

[dream_weaver]

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

(since consciousness exists, you know that it could be created somehow)

If consciousness were replaced with existence the cited excerpt would read (since existence exists, you know that it could be created somehow) and there are those that have created entire theologies on those premises. 

If the biologist manage to replicate a biological living organism, would that make the created organism a machine having been constructed by man?

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

If consciousness were replaced with existence the cited excerpt would read (since existence exists, you know that it could be created somehow)

Existence isn't something that is created, especially because existence isn't an entity or object. It is the sum total of everything that does exist. Of all the entities that exist, they all could be created again, or any attributes that they possess (supposing the necessary conditions are met). To be precise, it's not consciousness per se that is created, but entities which are conscious. It appears that the necessary conditions of consciousness could be established in a machine, that is, there is nothing in principle that prevents a machine from ever having all the attributes that make something conscious. It might turn out though that you would need to use biological materials (because of whatever properties those materials have) but in any case, it would result from a man-made method and a purposeful intention.

And by that point, any questions about what this artificial (man-made) consciousness would do is the same as speculating about what an alien species would do, or a  creature that evolves thousands of years in the future. The facts of reality are the same, what constitutes knowledge is the same (broadly speaking, in terms of things like contextual certainty), but the code of ethics for that creature and how it forms concepts would be different, meaning that their proper politics and aesthetic theory would be based on their unique cognitive nature or even unique biological nature. It wouldn't tell us the one and only true ethical theory that is absolutely true for all conceptual creatures. 

Edited February 5 by Eiuol

[dream_weaver]

54 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

 It appears that the necessary conditions of consciousness could be established in a machine, that is, there is nothing in principle that prevents a machine from ever having all the attributes that make something conscious. 

Then it is back, once again, to the engineers fabricating a demonstrative example that demonstrates such can be achieved.

 

[Easy Truth]

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

In terms of what you're saying, if a "conscious machine" were ever created (since consciousness exists, you know that it could be created somehow) you would need a new concept besides machine, or you would have to change the definition of machine. 

The implication of all this is that "free will" should not be axiomatic. That is can be created, or that it does have a reason.

The "conscious machine" idea is a metaphor. Your mixing definitions or contexts. Kind of like the mental entities you brought up. It's something to be worked with in thinking. But a machine is a machine. Consciousness is not a machine. This is a problem that causes awful political systems when the philosopher thinks of humans as being machines. mechanistic  ... ultimately deterministic.

One fundamental problem with "creating" consciousness is the duplication issue. If you are copied, is your copy you? Or being you, means one unique existent? There are other philosophical problems.

[Eiuol]

21 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The implication of all this is that "free will" should not be axiomatic. That is can be created, or that it does have a reason.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

24 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But a machine is a machine.

You aren't getting it. If you want to define machine as or including "non-volitional entity", then clearly if you build something that is volitional, it would not fit under the concept 'machine'. Or, you have to redefine 'machine'. Both would be valid.

You seem to keep thinking about building a volitional entity in terms of how AI systems are built, but this is wrong. It wouldn't be artificially intelligent, it would be intelligent. It wouldn't be built like robots or AI systems we have today, they would be built in new ways. Totally new ways, not just improvements of the same thing. 

10 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Then it is back, once again, to the engineers fabricating a demonstrative example that demonstrates such can be achieved.

There are enough developments out there that we know it's possible to implement the necessary elements of consciousness. 

[Easy Truth]

46 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

There are enough developments out there that we know it's possible to implement the necessary elements of consciousness. 

FALSE.

Artificial means something.

48 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You aren't getting it. If you want to define machine as or including "non-volitional entity", then clearly if you build something that is volitional, it would not fit under the concept 'machine'. Or, you have to redefine 'machine'. Both would be valid.

To create a volitional entity MEANS to create that which is determined, predictable, machinery. Meaning it will not have a mind of its own.

You're the one who's not getting it. 

[Eiuol]

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

To create a volitional entity MEANS to create that which is determined, predictable, machinery. Meaning it will not have a mind of its own.

Biological functions are reproduced all the time, you can have artificial hearts that do all the same things that hearts do (except the ways that cells do things like cell repair, which are not essential to what makes something a heart). It isn't a "fake" or inferior imitation of hearts, and it isn't biologically produced. Indeed volition is a biological function, but just like anything else biological, you can intentionally re-create it if you eventually figure out what allows that function to operate at all. 

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

You're the one who's not getting it. 

I don't mean that you disagree, but since you haven't really addressed the things I said, it seems like you don't follow what I'm saying. 

[Doug Morris]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:06 PM, Boydstun said:

The proverbial straight stick partially in air and partially in water indicates a bent stick. Understanding how it comes to look bent does nothing to change the circumstance that the perceptual presentation is misleading (contra Branden 2009 [c.1968], 47–48; Kelley [. . .]; Peikoff [. . .]). The stick’s looking bent is not on account of some inference we have made, not even an inference unconsciously made.

The stick looks bent, but concluding that it is bent is a matter of interpretation or inference.

If we move the stick so that a different amount of it is in the water, the look of a bend changes its position on the stick.  If we feel the stick with our fingers, it does not feel bent.  Thus collecting a more thorough set of perceptions gives a more nuanced set of perceptual data.

 

[Doug Morris]

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

On 2/4/2023 at 3:59 PM, Eiuol said:

In terms of what you're saying, if a "conscious machine" were ever created (since consciousness exists, you know that it could be created somehow) you would need a new concept besides machine, or you would have to change the definition of machine. 

The implication of all this is that "free will" should not be axiomatic. That is can be created, or that it does have a reason.

Free will and consciousness are axiomatic in the sense that, for any individual, the knowledge that that individual is conscious and has free will is implicit in and logically prior to any non-axiomatic knowledge.

This does not mean that free will and consciousness do not have causes that bring them into existence.  They do have causes that bring them into existence.

 

Edited February 5 by Doug Morris
clarification

[Doug Morris]

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

To create a volitional entity MEANS to create that which is determined, predictable, machinery. Meaning it will not have a mind of its own.

We create volitional entities with minds of their own when we have children and raise them past infancy.  Why can't we create them some other way?

 

[Easy Truth]

18 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

We create volitional entities with minds of their own when we have children and raise them past infancy.  Why can't we create them some other way?

The "creating" we talk about here is different than reproduction with ready made replicating cells.
We propate life, not creating it out of electrical impulses.
These supposed logic gates and memory have to "want" to live.
You can simulate that right now.

But is simulation the real thing? And how would you know?

On 2/4/2023 at 8:39 PM, Eiuol said:

It might turn out though that you would need to use biological materials (because of whatever properties those materials have) but in any case, it would result from a man-made method and a purposeful intention.

Unlike an artificial heart that pumps and does what the heart does, can we create consciousness and freewill as it's core component?
Why can you say it with certainty. Why don't you go further and say that free will is an illusion. We just don't know what the mechanism is. With sufficient knowledge free will goes away.
This may or may not be true, but you are not making that case for some reason.

We can program in "optional" conceptualization which is sort of what we have within.
We choose to form a concept or not to.
As a random or purposeful act, to be discovered (how its done).
Are you saying free will is like a random number generator, a etherial dice?
Again, once "the mechanism" behind free will is discovered, it goes against the idea of free will. It would mean that free will exists, simply because we don't know what it is and how it operates, i.e. contextually based on what we know.
The problem is that we would contradict what we "know".

In theory, one could pour in knowledge, a specific amount of specific mental entities.
Two identical mental entity containers will have the same consciousness until different new data comes in. It would imply that "we want" means, the chemicals we are composed of are interacting a certain way.
And if that is the case, then we are determined to behave a certain way.

[tadmjones]

43 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

And if that is the case, then we are determined to behave a certain way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take the criticism above to mean that the hypothetical construction of a non-human entity possessing consciousness would repudiate the concept of free will. That the existence of a 'created' volitional AI would prove 'strict' determinism. 

" then we are determined to behave a certain way." This though isn't an indication of a lack of volition, in what I think is the correct frame that is more a statement about identity, we are determined to behave in a certain way ie as humans. Consciousness is an attribute of humans, 'but' the consciousness of humans only functions( has a specific identity) in a human way. I think confusion/argument around this discussion gets lost in not keeping some terms separated 'enough'. eg 'volition' and 'consciousness'. Ants are 'conscious' they react to stimuli but ascribing any amount of volition to its consciousness seems without merit. I don't know enough computer science or theory to know if algorithmic computation can be programmed to incorporate a true 'choice' for an algorithm to assign 'its' own weightings or if something in the 'maths' inherently contains weightings, but if such assignments(again no knowledge of computer science/theory) can be engineered such that the 'system' itself has any 'ability' or path to set a nonarbitrary determination, then that may described as a kind of free will , but that 'kind' would not be 'human' free will.

 

[Eiuol]

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But is simulation the real thing? And how would you know?

If any of the necessary characteristics are missing, it can't be that thing. If it has all the necessary characteristics, it is that thing. 

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Unlike an artificial heart that pumps and does what the heart does, can we create consciousness and freewill as it's core component?

Consciousness is a biological function, it isn't something beyond or transcending biological functions. So, your question of "unlike a heart...", well, you didn't even mention what is different or special about consciousness as a biological function. 

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Again, once "the mechanism" behind free will is discovered, it goes against the idea of free will. It would mean that free will exists, simply because we don't know what it is and how it operates, i.e. contextually based on what we know.

Honestly, I don't understand what you're talking about. It sounds very confused. I'm not saying that because I think you're wrong. I'm saying that because it looks like you're having a completely different conversation. All I have said is that consciousness is a biological function, and that biological functions can be re-created. Address that if you want.