> From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You guys are seriously irritating me. > > You are talking such rubbish. But it's collective rubbish - the > collective *non-sense* of AI. And it occurs partly because our culture > doesn't offer a simple definition of consciousness. So let me have a > crack > at one. > > First off, let's remove consciousness-as-sentience. That's important, > but > it's secondary. > > The real issue of whether an AGI - a computer - should have > consciousness, > is, I suggest, should it have a "world-movie" ? > > IOW should it run a continuous sensory movie of the world around it? > > That's what every living creature from single cells upwards runs - a > continuous > sensory movie of the world around it, (although it took time to get to > visual movies). > > That movie is clearly the central business of consciousness. And it is > also > clearly what evolution thought the absolute foundation of intelligence. > Amazingly, it didn't listen to you guys, smart as you are - it didn't > start > with logic or mathematics or language, or anything that AI considers to > be a > sine qua non. > > That sensory movie is the absolute foundation of human intelligence too, > the > thing that never ever stops. Even you guys sometimes stop thinking in > language, or maths, but your movie of the world around you never stops. > And > when you sleep, your mind keeps running movies of imagined worlds around > you. > Even then language and maths are at best only occasional participants in > the > movie. > > If you could stop thinking about just your computers, and start thinking > - > as you absolutely must here - about robots as well, then it is, I > suggest, > obvious that the first thing a robot needs is a world-movie . > > How can you survive in the world if you can't see the world, can't see > where > you need to go, or what's coming at you, (or which keys to push on your > computer)? Even your fictional superAGI, if it were to be independent, > would > have to run a movie of the world around it, to protect itself from all > the > dangers of the world, like human programmers, bent on harming it, and > ensure > its supply of energy and other necessities. > > How too can you know about the world if you've never seen it, on-the- > spot, > firsthand, and in person through your free-roaming world-movie? ("Sure I > can. Wikipedia tells me everything I need to know about the world and > life". > Right). > > If you continue to think robotically, you also won't have any need to > include high-falutin' forms of self-consciousness in your definitions of > consciousness. > > Because that movie will obviously have to be an "iworld-movie." Any > robot or > agent moving through the world must have a continuous sense of self - > its > integrated > body, brain and sensors, rather than some homunculus - in relation to > the > world around it - and therefore > a sense of itself watching the movie. There can be no consciousness > WITHOUT > self-consciousness - no world-movie without an I/eye/camera. You have to > estimate continuously > where things are in relation to yourself in order to shift your POV, or > move > this way or that, towards or away from things, as required. So no > high-falutin' "yes, but who am I really - I mean deep down" kind of > self-consciousness is required, just the most basic kind, that even > schizophrenics have. > > It should be obvious that consciousness is your world-movie - it's what > you're looking at right now, the show that never stops. How could you > survive in the real world, without that world-movie? > > But when you're incredibly smart, and rational, and logical, like AI- > ers, > and are deeply prejudiced against anything to do with movies or images > or > imagination let alone bodies, you can't see the obvious - the > couldn't-possibly-be-more-obvious. > > And you are prepared to > settle for a totally sense-less, deaf-dumb-and-blind, brain-in-a-vat > conception of intelligence. > > Then you end up resorting to the most desperately contorted arguments to > justify your senselessness - I can see this one coming - "ah but my > cousin > has been a total vegetable in a coma for the last twenty years, and he's > conscious." >
Mike, The reason why people are thinking about all this stuff in terms of maths is because it is not all just fluffy philosophizing you have to have at least minimalistic math models in order to build software. So when you say iTheathre or iMovie I'm thinking bits per send, compression, color depth, Fourier transforms, object recognition probabilities,... sorry man that's how it is. Just saying that there is a movie projecting against the inside of your skull ain't gonna cut the mustard. Movie is too broad.... you have to define it more... John ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
