On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales via AGI <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also note that until we actually build something that has consciousness by > physics replication nobody can proclaim to actually know anything solid about > it except that the physics of it does not exist in any computational > substrate that exists at present. I also note that the only real example of > human level general intelligence, natural general intelligence (NGI)! , has > consciousness and that we are currently using it to conduct this discussion > and that science is critically dependent on it, whatever it is. Empirical > fact .... get over it! > > I also note that some of the attitudes here, to computing as an AGI and the > consciousness/intelligence relation, are a bit like climate deniers. That is > there’s merely evidence-less opinion masquerading as a science outcome. The > reasons for this preference/opinion I can’t claim to understand. It is > invariant to evidence in a way that I find quite disturbing. What is it about > modern life that fosters this kind of thing? That causes shootings in > Paris?Some people would rather be self-assured that they absolutely ‘know’ > garbage rather than admit to not knowing something. Some sort of ignorance > phobia? So strange. > That is science. That is not being done in the computer-only-centric part of > the AGI community. Which seems dominant even now after 60+ years of failure. > What the existing computer-based-AGI community has been doing for 60+ years > is examine a hypothesis that consciousness is irrelevant. This is being done > in a way that is not actually science and none of the practitioners get that. > The problem with exaggeration is that it taints any reasonable remarks that may have been made along with it. Actually there hasn't been 60+years of failure. You mentioned that we are like climate deniers and yet here you are making a rather bold exaggerated statement that denies that contemporary computers have made great advancements in fields that require intelligence. The thing that makes AGI so elusive is that there is no solution to massive multiple strand computational complexity. I believe that the lack of a polynomial time solution to Logical Satisfiabiity is the best bet toward resolving the problem in the near future and I believe that it is the explanation of why AI did not get stronger faster. There was no reason for mathematicians to solve the problem until the invention of computers. I believe that Leonhard Euler discovered a SAT problem in the 19th century with his study of "the Seven Bridges of Konigsberg" (which Wikipedia points out was the first problem in graph theory,) but it is not clear that he fully understood the pervasiveness or potential of the extent of the problem. Of course Turing wrote about the SAT problem in 1936, and that was the first time the problem was laid out for the few people who could understand it. A polynomial time solution to SAT is almost certainly possible. It is just a matter of time. The evidence that consciousness is necessary for (actual) intelligence is not (really) based on science because science cannot explain the phenomena. (I accept the use of speculation in science as being part of science but, come on...) So we have substantial evidence that computers are used in a broad range of fields that were once considered the sole province of human mental activity, we know that they serve as major mental aides and those powers include methods that were not possible with books, recordings and mechanical calculators and we know that many milestones in AI have been made. Jim Bromer On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi folk, > > > > My (Chapter 12 PCT) test is ‘consciousness-agnostic’ as far as test subjects > are concerned. It only demands full embodiment. Can I suggest that no matter > what your attitude to consciousness is, that the PCT (or whatever it evolves > into) be considered as a way to bring science to this community that will > attract science funding (eventually)? > > > > I also note that until we actually build something that has consciousness by > physics replication nobody can proclaim to actually know anything solid about > it except that the physics of it does not exist in any computational > substrate that exists at present. I also note that the only real example of > human level general intelligence, natural general intelligence (NGI)! , has > consciousness and that we are currently using it to conduct this discussion > and that science is critically dependent on it, whatever it is. Empirical > fact .... get over it! > > > > I also note that some of the attitudes here, to computing as an AGI and the > consciousness/intelligence relation, are a bit like climate deniers. That is > there’s merely evidence-less opinion masquerading as a science outcome. The > reasons for this preference/opinion I can’t claim to understand. It is > invariant to evidence in a way that I find quite disturbing. What is it about > modern life that fosters this kind of thing? That causes shootings in > Paris?Some people would rather be self-assured that they absolutely ‘know’ > garbage rather than admit to not knowing something. Some sort of ignorance > phobia? So strange. > > > > Scientists know that when you realise you don’t know something you’re a long > way towards a solution. I’ll try not to go Rumsfeldian here. > > > > Being wrong is a job requirement for a scientist. Let yourself be wrong and > you’ll get to what is right by wrongness attrition! You can only be wrong so > many times in a row. But if you never try to make yourself wrong you’ll never > know whether you are right or not. > > > > Like climate change and its deniers, the consciousness basis of intelligence > will roll over the backs of the deniers, leaving its tread-marks on a > bewildered sub-group of denialists’ backs. Thomas Kuhn recognised this > sub-group. Ernst Mach died in denial of electrons. They get old and become > irrelevant, and are ultimately regarded as having left science. Their > preferences become a religion. Their community a cult. > > > > BTW > > Did you know the science of consciousness recently became a ‘generational’ > activity? > > > > Roughly 25. It started around 1990. An entire generation of scientists has > inhabited it. They think they are studying something real and very very > important. That community knows _exactly_ what it is studying. They also know > they don’t know what it is. Just like fire was, long ago. To know what you’re > studying does not mean you know what it is. > > > > That is science. That is not being done in the computer-only-centric part of > the AGI community. Which seems dominant even now after 60+ years of failure. > What the existing computer-based-AGI community has been doing for 60+ years > is examine a hypothesis that consciousness is irrelevant. This is being done > in a way that is not actually science and none of the practitioners get that. > > > > The science-of-consciousness community will be the community that solves the > AGI problem. That community will have an explanation as to why the 60+ years > of computer-based-AGI failure has happened and could have been predicted. > With the consciousness understanding in place, then we’ll be able to design > AGI from a perspective of explicitly choosing to include consciousness or > not, by design, and by knowing what its presence or absence does to the > resulting artificial intelligence. Only then will the ethics issues make > sense. > > > > Signing off for now. 2015 beckons. Dammit I said I wouldn’t ramble. Sorry. > > > > Cheers > > Colin ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
