Matt Mahoney wrote:
<snip> ... accepted because the theory makes predictions that can be tested.
But there are absolutely no testable predictions that can be made from a theory of
consciousness.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is simply wrong.
It is difficult but you can test for it objectively by demanding that an
entity based on your 'theory of consciousness' deliver an authentic
scientific act on the a-priori unknown using visual experience for
scientific evidence. To the best _indirect_ evidence we have, that act
is critically dependent on the existence of a visual phenomenal field
within the tested entity. Visual P-consciousness and scientific evidence
are literal identities in that circumstance. Degrade visual
experience...scientific outcome is disrupted. You can use this to
actually discover the physics of qualia as follows:
1) Concoct your theory of consciousness.
2) Build a scientist with it with (amongst other necessities) visual
phenomenal consciousness which you believe to be there because of your
theory of consciousness. Only autonomous, embodied entities are valid,
because it involved actually interacting with an environment the way
humans do.
3) Test it for delivery of an authentic act of science on the a-priori
unknown by testing for ignorance at the start followed by the
acquisition of the requisite knowledge followed by the application of
the knowledge on a completely novel problem.
4) FAIL: = your physics is wrong or your design is bad.
PASS = design and physics are good.
REPEAT THE ABOVE for all putative physics.... END when you get
success...voila...the physics you dreamt up is the right one or as good
as the right one.
If the entity delivers the 'law of nature' then it has to have all the
essential aspects of a visual experience needed for a successful
scientific act. You can argue about the 'experience' within the entity
afterwards...on a properly informed basis of real knowledge. Until then
you're just waffling about theories.
Such a test might involve reward through reverse-engineering chess.
Initially chess ignorance is demonstrated...followed by repeated
exposure to chess behaviour on a real board.....followed by a demand to
use chess behaviour in a completely environment and in a different
manner...say to operate a machine that has nothing to do with chess but
is metaphorically labelled to signal that chess rules apply to some
aspect of its behaviour.... This proves that the laws underneath the
external behaviour of the original chess pieces was internalised and
abstracted...which contains all the essential ingredients of a
scientific act on the unknown. You cannot do this without authentic
connection to the distal external world of the chess pieces.
You cannot train such an entity. The scientific act itself is the
training. Neither testers nor tested can have any knowledge of the 'law
of nature' or the environments to be encountered. A completely novel
'game' could be substituted for chess, for example. Any entity dependent
on any sort of training will fail. You can't train for scientific
outcomes. You can only build the necessities of scientific behaviour and
then let it loose.
You run this test on all putative theories of consciousness. If you
can;'t build it you have no theory. If you build it and it fails, tough.
If you build it and it passes your theory is right.
"You can't test for consciousness" is a cultural catch phrase identical
to "man cannot fly".
Just like the Wright Bros, we need to start to fly. Not pretend to fly.
Or not fly and say we did....
Objective testing for consciousness is easy. Building the test and the
entity...well that's not so easy.... but it is possible. A 'definition'
of consciousness is irrelevant. Like every other circumstance in
science...'laws' and physical phenomena that operate according to them
are discovered, not defined. Humans did not wait for a definition of
fire before cooking dinner with it. Why should consciousness be any
different?
cheers
colin hales
-------------------------------------------
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=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
