Hi Trent,
You guys are forcing me to voice all sort of things in odd ways.
It's a hoot...but I'm running out of hours!!!
Trent Waddington wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Colin Hales
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you have to be exposed directly to all the actual novelty in the natural world,
not the novelty
recognised by a model of what novelty is. Consciousness (P-consciousness and
specifically and importantly visual P-consciousness) is the mechanism by
which novelty in the actual DISTANT natural world is made apparent to the
agent. Symbolic grounding in Qualia NOT I/O. You do not get that information
through your retina data. You get it from occipital visual P-consciousness.
The Turing machine abstracts the mechanism of access to the distal natural
world ....and hence has to be informed by a model, which you don't have...
Wow. I know I don't know what "P-consciousness" is.. and clearly I
must not no what "Qualia" is.. The capital must change the meaning
from the normal definition.
But basically I think you have to come out right now and say what your
philosophy of reality is.
Let me say right away that if you don't know what qualia or
P-consciousness are then you're missing 150 years of biology and things
are gonna look kind of odd. I suggest a rapid wiki-googling exercise
(also in a recent post I delivered a whole pile of definitions and
references.)
I don't have a philosophy of reality. I exist, at a practical; level,
within the confines of the standard particle model, 4 forces, 4
transmitter and the particle zoo. I don't need anything else to make a
cogent case for my model that stacks up empirically the normal way.
I do have a need to alter science, however, to become a dual aspect
epistemology about a monism, entirely consistent with all existing
science. Only the options of scientists changes and the structure of
knowledge changes. In that case, the objective view I use has a very
simple extension which accounts for subjectivity with physical, causal
teeth.
If your complaint is that a robot senses are not as rich or as complex
as a human senses and therefore an AI hooked up to robot senses cannot
possibly have the same qualia as humans then can you *stipulate for
the sake of argument* that it may be possible to supply human senses
to an AI so that it does have the same qualia? Or are you saying that
there's some mystical magical thing about humans that makes it
impossible for an AI to have the same qualia.
And if you're not happy with the idea of an AI having the same qualia
as humans, then surely you're willing to agree that a human that was
born wired into solely robot senses (suppose its for humanitarian
reasons, rather than just nazi doctors having fun if you like) would
have fundamentally different qualia. You believe this human would not
"produce an original scientific act on the a-priori unknown" -
whatever that means - or does the fact that this evil human-robot
hybrid is somehow half human give it a personal blessing from God?
Trent
I'm not "complaining" about anything! I am dealing with brute reality.
You are simply unaware of the job that AGI faces...and are not aware of
the 150 years of physiological evidence that the periphery (peripheral
nervous system and periphery of the central nervous system like retina)
is not 'experienced'. None of it. I have already been through this in my
original posting, I think. IO signals (human and robot) _are not
perceived_, generate no sensations i.e. are Qualia-Null. Experience
happens in the cranial central nervous system, and is merely projected
as-if it comes from the periphery. If feels like you have vision
centered on your eyes, yes? Well surprise..all an illusion. Vision
happens in the back of your head and is projected to appear as if your
eyes generated it. You need to get a hold of some basic physiology.
So the surprise for everyone who's been operating under the assumption
that "symbol grounding" is simply I/O wiring: WRONG. We are symbolically
grounded in qualia: something that happens in the cranial CNS. Not even
the spinal CNS does any sensations. Pain in your back anyone? WRONG. The
pain comes from cortex, NOT your spine. It's projected and mostly badly.
As you must know from my postings...qualia are absolutely mandatory for
handling novelty for a whole pile of complex reasons. And robots will
need them too. But they will not have them from simply wiring up I/O
signals and manipulating abstractions. You need the equivalent of the
complete CRANIAL central nervous system electrodynamics to achieve that,
not a model of it.
So I demand that robots have qualia. For good physical, sensible,
verifiable reasons...Whether they are exactly like humans..is another
question. A human with artificial but equivalent peripheral sensory
transduction would have qualia because the CNS generates them, not
because are delivered by the I/O. And that human would be able to do
science....because the CNS does the work....Look up phantom limb
syndrome and blindsight.. there's evidence everywhere. Doctors have had
to clearly distinguish between the measurement (periphery) and the
sensation for a very very long time.
So off to the books! Then we can continue a dialog. Just don't let
anyone mis-inform you that wiring generates experiences or that fiddling
about with labelled numbers generates intelligence. Work from empirical
knowledge.
Gotta make dinner... :-)
cheers,
colin
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
