Frankly, this discussion just became absurd.
Well then, I will not burden you with any further absurdities.
Wouldnt a Computer generated/run intelligence be the penultimate of objective thought? Something that makes NO decision that dosent revolove around data and facts? Something that is totally unswayed by the objections and feelings of others as well as no personal feelings…Pure logic…Pure fact. The issue comes into being though, that with out free will and the ability to gather data on its own, can it makes choices about its own well being and bets interest. Then again, if it were truly a freee thinking individual, it would not be constrained that much.
For those interested in the estimated date of arrival of the singularity and conscious AI, here are a few links which will surprise you with the quality of material
I am going to have a big laugh when AI finally comes around and computers turn out to be just as fallible, irrational, and emotionalistic as many humans.
</joking>
On a serious note, I think it would be correct to say that while consciousness cannot be reduced to any biological process, there are biological environments and potentially digital algorithms than give rise to consciousness. I know nothing about digital algorithms (i.e. a Turing machine) that prevents them from supporting intelligence.
On a serious note, I think it would be correct to say that while consciousness cannot be reduced to any biological process, there are biological environments and potentially digital algorithms than give rise to consciousness. I know nothing about digital algorithms (i.e. a Turing machine) that prevents them from supporting intelligence.
I agree, GC.
Bearster, why does a computer need an “arbitrary” bit in order to build concepts? It seems to me that a method for a computer to develop and integrate concepts could be built based on a true/false digital system, and then a concept for arbitrary would be built through this method over time.
Concepts themselves resemble objects (in c++) enough where the developing of a concept would be simple, given a means of perception. The complexity of the issue, as far as I am concerned, arises from the complexity of developing methods for initial interpretations of sensory data into percepts and for concept integration.
Well then, I will not burden you with any further absurdities.
I don’t think the discussion was a burden. I just think it’s funny that for the last several posts we were arguing adamantly against positions we essentially agreed with, because of a trivial semantic misunderstanding.
And for the record,
Are you claiming that consciousness is dependent on nondeterministic physical processes?
I should have been more specific. I did not mean that the laws of physics break down inside the brain and become nondeterministic, if that’s what you’re asking. I meant only that the neural circuitry that gives rise to consciousness is a physical process that is composed entirely of basic, deterministic chemical and physical interactions, which nonetheless, in the aggregate, produce consciousness–which is not determined. This circuitry then, as a whole, can also be called nondeterministic, because while it produces consciousness, it is also controlled by consciousness. Its output is therefore not determined.
Mr. Speicher, you are essentially saying that consciousness is caused by the brain, but it cannot be reduced to just physical processes, or have i misunderstood what you are saying?
If say physical processes are responsible for only 20% of consciousness, then where does the other 80% come from? Or are you saying, that given this day and age, we just don’t know yet, what constitutes the other 80%? (the percentages are just a conceptual tool, no more)
If consciousness cannot be wholly reduced to physical processes, wouldn’t the rest have sprung from a void?
I am not a biologist, so if there’s some grave error i have committed then please point it out.
dinesh.
…I know nothing about digital algorithms (i.e. a Turing machine) that prevents them from supporting intelligence.
Here’s one thing: computers don’t have free will. They are deterministic, and unavoidably follow whatever course is necessitated by their programming, environment, etc. They are fundamentally more similar in their nature to a rock (albeit much more complex) than to a human being. Absent volition, there can be no such thing as intelligence or objectivity.
For that reason, I will consider any discussion of AI as a serious possibility to be arbitrary until some evidence is given that we could reproduce free will in inanimate matter. And the only way that might ever happen is after we discover how it arises in ourselves, and we don’t even know that yet.
On a serious note, I think it would be correct to say that while consciousness cannot be reduced to any biological process, there are biological environments and potentially digital algorithms than give rise to consciousness. I know nothing about digital algorithms (i.e. a Turing machine) that prevents them from supporting intelligence.
All of the evidence supports consciousness as being dependent on life, and none of the evidence supports consciousness to depend on “digital algorithms.” If you think it possible, the burden of proof is on your part. No one has to show what would prevent “digital algorithms” from supporting consciousness, but rather you need to show why this might be so. Absent of such evidence, it is not possible, it is arbitrary.
Mr. Speicher, you are essentially saying that consciousness is caused by the brain, but it cannot be reduced to just physical processes, or have i misunderstood what you are saying?
Consciousness cannot be reduced to neural processes, period.
If say physical processes are responsible for only 20% of consciousness, then where does the other 80% come from? If consciousness cannot be wholly reduced to physical processes, wouldn’t the rest have sprung from a void?
You misunderstand. Our consciousness is 100 % dependent on the brain for its existence, and consciousness is a completely different thing from the brain. Consciousness is … 100 % itself. It is an irreducible primary. As far as we know there is nothing else in existence like consciousness, and any attempt to reduce it to neural processes will only lead to failure and confusion. Some people like to think of consciousness as an emergent property, an independent property arising from the brain. Personally, I do not think that too helpful, because it really does not explain anything. Consciousness is not neural processes, period.
This circuitry then, as a whole, can also be called nondeterministic …
You are wrong, and as long as you continue to not understand why, you will continue to think our differences to be “trivial” or “absurd.” They are neither.
You are wrong, and as long as you continue to not understand why, you will continue to think our differences to be “trivial” or “absurd.” They are neither.
Don’t misunderstand, I absolutely disagree with you on several important issues in regard to conscoiusness. What we agree on is that consciousness has an existence separate from the brain, and that consciousness cannot be reduced to the brain (neither philosophically nor scientifically). I can say that now because I am using the precise definition of reduction that you’ve given, which you say can also be regarded as the Objectivist definition. That is not at all a trivial or merely semantic issue. It is a matter of clearly defining the concept involved. Discussion of whether this or that could be reduced would be impossible without such a definition. Your insistence that I do not agree with you on this particular point is bizarre, since I have explained myself several times now. Consciousness does not consist of neural processes.
What is very trivial and absurd is your continued misunderstanding over what the word corresponding means. You seem to be insisting that I’m contradicting the fact that consciousness cannot be reduced to the brain when I say that conscious states have a corresponding neural mechanism. But what I told you is that when I say corresponding, I mean what you meant when you said “accompanying.” Corresponding does not have to mean “similar or analogous to.” For the Random House Dictionary definition see my previous post.
The only way we could still be in disagreement over this is if you are in fact attempting to claim that consciousness, or some aspect of it, has no physical expression in the brain. You’ve said flat out that you are not claiming this, but some of your statements seem to contradict that. I cannot discern your actual position.
Now, if you disagree with me that the output of the neural circuitry controlled by consciousness is not determined, that is a different matter, and I would be happy to hear why.
To start with, how can consciousness itself be nondeterministic, but its actions in the physical world be determined. Neural action, after all, is precisely the action that results when consciousness does anything, from thinking to moving a muscle. So how can the output of the neural systems controlled by consciousness be determined?
Here’s one thing: computers don’t have free will. They are deterministic, and unavoidably follow whatever course is necessitated by their programming, environment, etc.
I think that’s an incorrect representation, because what you are in fact saying is that the underlying physical components of computers don’t have free will – which is true, as they are entirely causal. On the other hand, the human brain is entirely causal as well. Consciousness is a phenomena that (necessarily) arises from a causal mechanism. It is incorrect to attribute the characteristics of consciousness to the mechanism that supports it.
For that reason, I will consider any discussion of AI as a serious possibility to be arbitrary until some evidence is given that we could reproduce free will in inanimate matter.
You are right in that discussion of artificial intelligence consciousness is arbitrary because we have no idea of what physical conditions cause it to come about. However, it is also an arbitrary claim to say that a biological process can give rise to consciousness while an inorganic one cannot – unless you know something about computers that I don’t.
All of the evidence supports consciousness as being dependent on life, and none of the evidence supports consciousness to depend on “digital algorithms.” If you think it possible, the burden of proof is on your part. No one has to show what would prevent “digital algorithms” from supporting consciousness, but rather you need to show why this might be so. Absent of such evidence, it is not possible, it is arbitrary.
That’s not entirely correct. It is true that there is self-evident evidence that living entities give rise to consciousness, but it is not true that there is no evidence that digital algorithms can do the same. Turing proved that a digital algorithm can simulate any algorithm found in nature – including those of the human brain. At the very least, this proves it possible that it is possible to make an exact simulation of a human brain. Now, a computer running such a simulation would probably be bigger than our galaxy, but we do in fact have some evidence that it is theoretically possible. The challenge is to determine the essential physical process of the brain that give rise to consciousness and reproduce them in digital form. The current state of computer science and psychology may be light-years away from achieving that, but we know that it is at least theoretically possible.
GC, you might be interested in the article, “Mindless Intelligence” by Christian Beenfeldt in the latest (April) issue of The Intellectual Activist. Briefly, it describes how the Turing Test of computer intelligence is logically unsound and philosophically corrupt. It substitutes the ability of a computer to mimic human conversation for the actual presence of any conscious understanding. The article shows that Turing’s ideas about consciousness were thoroughly irrational. As to a Turing Machine, I’m not familiar enough with what it is to comment.
That said,
The challenge is to determine the essential physical process of the brain that give rise to consciousness and reproduce them in digital form.
I agree that this is possible. I also agree with your statements two posts up.
…However, it is also an arbitrary claim to say that a biological process can give rise to consciousness while an inorganic one cannot – unless you know something about computers that I don’t.
I did not say that an inorganic process cannot give rise to consciousness. I said that it is arbitrary to posit that they can, until some evidence for this is provided.
(I don’t take Turing’s “proof” to be evidence. It is rationalism, and logically fallacious rationalism to boot. Anyway, he–to my understanding–proved only that all computable functions are “Turing computable”–not that all functions are computable. And if you buy into that kind of “logic,” it’s supposedly also been “proven” that there are many non-computable functions.
You will never get intelligence, free will, or even consciousness from a tape with instructions to move back and forth and mark or unmark. If we can ever reproduce intelligence, it would have to be…well, I don’t even know what it would look like, because we just don’t know what gives rise to those things yet, and it would be arbitrary speculation on my part to try to guess at this point. But it will certainly not be a Turing machine.)
What is rationalistic about the Turing Machine, and which functions not computable?
Ash, how can you say what will not produce intelligence if you admit that you don’t know what gives rise to it in the first place? Again, I think you are attributing some functions of consciousness to the mechanism that enables it, which is a fallacy. It’s true that Turing’s test has been used by philosophers to make tall claims about intelligence itself, but I think the concept of a Turing machine itself is entirely sound.
Amagi, I would probably agree with Christian’s evaluation of the Turing test. At the same time, I think it would be impossible for any non-intelligent algorithm to fool me into confusing it with the real thing. The notion that consciousness can be “simulated” without the existence of a conscious entity is wrong.
Disclaimer: My knowledge of computer science and Turing is limited to a casual skimming though a few websites.
All of the evidence supports consciousness as being dependent on life, and none of the evidence supports consciousness to depend on “digital algorithms.” If you think it possible, the burden of proof is on your part. No one has to show what would prevent “digital algorithms” from supporting consciousness, but rather you need to show why this might be so. Absent of such evidence, it is not possible, it is arbitrary.
That’s not entirely correct. It is true that there is self-evident evidence that living entities give rise to consciousness, but it is not true that there is no evidence that digital algorithms can do the same.
Okay. That was my point – provide the evidence and convince me.
Turing proved that a digital algorithm can simulate any algorithm found in nature – including those of the human brain. At the very least, this proves it possible that it is possible to make an exact simulation of a human brain.
No. Consciousness is not an “algorithm found in nature.” Consciousness is guided by volitional choice, and therefore stands apart from any algorithm, digital or otherwise.
You have failed to provide any evidence that “digital algorithms” can “give rise to consciousness.” Though, I do remain open to such evidence, when and if you can provide it.
What is rationalistic about the Turing Machine, and which functions not computable?
One such function is the so-called “halting problem,” and there are supposedly an infinite number of other non-computable functions.
…It’s true that Turing’s test has been used by philosophers to make tall claims about intelligence itself, but I think the concept of a Turing machine itself is entirely sound.
Yes, I think you’re right that the concept of a Turing machine itself is sound, but I think that the attempt to apply it to everything that exists is rationalism.
Ash, how can you say what will not produce intelligence if you admit that you don’t know what gives rise to it in the first place? Again, I think you are attributing some functions of consciousness to the mechanism that enables it, which is a fallacy.
Perhaps you’re right that I am going too far in making that claim. I’ll have to think about it some more. But certainly the claim that they can produce intelligence is arbitrary, even if the claim that they can’t is also arbitrary. We just don’t know at this point.
Amagi, I would probably agree with Christian’s evaluation of the Turing test. At the same time, I think it would be impossible for any non-intelligent algorithm to fool me into confusing it with the real thing. The notion that consciousness can be “simulated” without the existence of a conscious entity is wrong.
Why? I think it’s much more plausible that we could create a computer that would simulate consciousness (though this would be the galaxy-sized computer you hypothesized in an earlier post) than one that would actually be conscious. One claim I can at least imagine. The other is arbitrary. How would you tell the difference?
Disclaimer: My knowledge of computer science and Turing is limited to a casual skimming though a few websites.
My knowledge of Turing is limited mostly to what I’ve learned in my symbolic logic class this semester, so that may explain why I distrust him. 
You have failed to provide any evidence that “digital algorithms” can “give rise to consciousness.” Though, I do remain open to such evidence, when and if you can provide it.
I did not say that a “consciousness algorithm” exists in the human brain, or is even possible. As I understand the term, “consciousness” is a concept that refers to the capabilities of a mental faculty. Foremost among these capabilities is perception, cognition and the initiation and direction of mental action.
Given that consciousness is a volitional state, I think it would be incorrect to claim that consciousness can be reduced to or represented by any algorithm, if by “reduced” you mean, “this algorithm is a conscious process.” However, I think it is correct to say that there are certain biological and potentially digital processes/algorithms that support or give rise to consciousness. By “give rise to” I mean “support a process with certain characteristics.”
Again, refer to my concept of a simulated brain. It is theoretically possible to create a digital simulation of every single atom in the brain. Since the behavior or atoms is entirely causal, it can be represented exactly in virtual form. The same physical properties that give rise to consciousness in humans will then be replicated in digital form. Now, I am not saying that such a simulation is feasible, but it is a useful theoretical model. Note that it would be a fallacy to claim that the simulated neurons don’t have free will or an “arbitrary” state, since the real neurons of the human brain do not have such features either – objects of consciousness cannot be reduced the entities that support it.
I don’t take Turing’s “proof” to be evidence. It is rationalism, and logically fallacious rationalism to boot.
I think you are almost being too kind. It is due to such “thinkers” as Daniel C. Dennett (Consciousness Explained) that a portion of the current generation has swallowed whole some of the worst anti-mind irrationalities that have ever been perpetuated by man. The only thing worse than straight philosophical absurdity is when it is clothed in scientific robes. At least the mystics of old attacked the mind directly. Today we witness the insidiousness of consciousness being attacked from within. Self-destruction, so to speak. Very sad.