----- Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No. Qualia is not needed for learning because there is no physical difference between an agent with qualia and one without. Chalmers questioned its existence, see http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html It is disturbing to think that qualia does not exist, but that is just the way your brain is programmed. You cannot change the belief that there is a "you" inside your head that experiences the outside world through your perceptual filters and makes high level decisions. But you only have this belief because it was selected by evolution. An intelligent, goal seeking agent must choose between short term reward and risky experiments that lead to greater knowledge and possibly greater long term reward. When the agent experiments, it behaves as if it had free will, even though it follows a deterministic algorithm. The agent cannot know its own algorithm because it does not have enough memory to simulate itself. On introspection, something random or mysterious must have made the choice. Humans credit this to free will, like when you choose to climb a mountain instead of stay home and watch TV. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I have thought for years that humans have no free will because the parts of their brain have to follow the laws of physics and therefore there is no chance to think and decide something else than what the atoms in the brain command to do. But there is a mistake in this argumentation. It is the definition of what constitutes the "I" or the "self". It is wrong to say "I HAVE a brain". Instead it is right to say "I AM a brain." The separation of the physical system and an abstract thing what the system implements is a misconception. But if I define myself as a physical system then there is nothing which dictates my decisions. The laws of physics are not something which is separated from myself. The laws of physics are part of myself. My decisions depend on my character which is a part of me. And my character depends on the arrangement of the atoms in my brain. The character, the brain, the arrangement of the atoms - everything of this belongs to the definition of myself. So there is nothing separated from me which is responsible for my decisions. If we think about a chess computer, then this point can be made clearer. Has a chess computer a free will? My answer is yes. And the answer depends on the understanding of how we define what the chess computer is. You may say the chess computer decides nothing because given a certain chess situation it would always decide for a certain move which is determined by the rules of its algorithm. He calculates optional moves and evaluates the moves but the whole process is a physical process which is determined by the algorithm of better by the laws of physics (transistors ...). This is true but this is not the point. In my definition, the chess computer HAS no algorithm but it IS the algorithm including all rules, the hardware and laws from physics. And therefore there remains nothing separated from the chess computer which could command its decisions. Decision is no illusion. If you evaluate two options then your brain really represent the two options. For everything in your mind there must be a physical counterpart, because your mind is a physical system. This also holds for qualia. Since qualia are in your mind there must be something physiological that represents this. You will agree that you have unconscious perception without qualia and conscious perception with qualia. Since you are a physical system there must be a physical based explanation for the difference. If you feel different in two situations there must be two different physical states and processes. And if there are unconscious perceptions without qualia and conscious perceptions with qualia then there must be a physical difference between these perceptions which is responsible for the phenomenon of qualia. I think it is possible that we can BUILD AGI with qualia but as I explained before we will never be able to EXPLAIN qualia without (hidden) self references to the phenomenon of qualia itself. Since we cannot explain qualia we can also a never answer the question whether qualia is necessary for AGI. Whenever we build AGI not by simulating every detail in the brain we cannot be sure whether it has qualia or not. Since it is possible to build something without understanding every detail, the question about qualia will be no showstopper for the creation of AGI. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
