Hi Russel, > I don't see that you've made your point. > If you achieve this, you have created an artificial > creative process, a sort of holy grail of AI/ALife.
Well? So what? Somebody has to do it. :-) The 'holy grail' terminology implies (subtext) that the creative process is some sort of magical unapproachable topic or is the exclusive domain of discipline X and that is not me.... beliefs I can't really buy into. I don't need anyone's permission to do what I do. Creativity in humans is perfectly natural, evolved in the brutal and inefficient experimental lab of evolution and survives because it was necessary for a _scientist_ (not cognitive agents of any other kind - I do not claim that) -to come into existence. A scientist is a specific, highly specialised, very highly defined behavioural subset of the biological world with reproducible outputs that relate directly to consciousness that can be verified. It is the ONLY example to use for in respect of any claims of consciousness in an artifact. I suppose I have made a judgement call - a design choice- as an engineer doing AGI - which I am perfectly entitled to do. It uses the only real benchmark we have for the processes involved. As an empirical proposition it is better placed than anything else I have ever heard from anyone anywhere, ever....why?....It has measurable outcomes using the _one and only_ definitive, verified and repeatable provider of 3rd person evidence of the creative process and its intimate relationship to consciousness - scientists themselves. > However, it seems far from obvious that consciousness should > be necessary. It is perfectly obvious! Do a scientific experiment on yourself. Close your eyes and then tell me you can do science as well. Qualia gone = Science GONE. For crying out loud - am I the only only that gets this?......Any other position that purports to be able to deliver anything like the functionality of a scientist without involving ALL the functionality (especially qualia) of a scientist must be based on assumptions - assumptions I do not make. It's not that all AI is necessarily conscious. It is not that all conscious entities are scientists. The position is designed to be able to make one single, very specific, cogent conclusive verifiable position _once_. Having scientifically reached that point other positions on the role/necessity/presence of consciousness in biology and machine can follow. > Biological evolution is widely considered to be creative > (even exponentially so), but few would argue that the > biosphere is conscious (and has been for ca 4E10 years). The second law of thermodynamics is the driver. I know that!.....and who is arguing that the biosphere is conscious? It has nothing to do with my engineering position/design/benchmarking choice. The creative act is, in the case of scientists - being "verfiably and serendipitously not-wrong" in respect of propositions about the natural world = empirical method. This, in a human, including all the relevant cognitive processes - and _especially_ the physics of qualia - is a perfectly valid benchmark. If a human must have consciousness to do science (the physics that exposes a scientist/agent appropriately to the real novelty around them, external to the scientist) and a machine can do science as well then that machine is conscious. QED. If you know what qualia are (have a proposition for them)and you switch them off (which I am proposing) and the ability to do science fails.... QED...and your proposition in respect of qualia has reach a level of empirical validity. This method has empirical teeth. Indeed I would defy _anyone_ to undermine it without making unfounded a-priori assumptions as to nature and role of the physics of qualia....that is, unscientific or quasi-religious adherence to axioms that were defined by the observation process in the first place. I believe this kind of discussion in this thread to be flawed because time and time again it fails to make use of the simplest of questions. Read it very carefully: "What is the underlying universe in which those things we observe in brain material (atoms, molecules, cells doing their dance), all defined _using_ observation would be/could be responsible _for observation itself_ AND make it look like it does (atoms, molecules, cells doing their dance)" For _that_ universe is the one we inhabit. This is an empirically testable, validly explored area. That universe - whatever it is- is not that universe defined by/within observation atoms, molcules, cells etc). It is the universe that LOOKS LIKE atoms, molcules, cells when you use the observation faculty provided by it because whatever it is those things are made of, WE _ARE_ IT. If you can't see this....let's see.... Ok.....science/maths defines the SINE WAVE: f(t) = sin(t) we observe a sine wave, we characterise it as appearing within our consciousness as shown. Now ask "what is it that is behaving sine-wave-ly". Whatever that is, it is NOT a sine wave. Another question to ask "What is it like to BE a sine wave?". These are all aspects of the same thing. Now consider one of the models (sine waves) - computationalism/functionalism - defined through an observation. What is the observation? .....That universe seems to be performing computation or information processing....so....what do we do with that observation?.... We jump to the unfounded conclusion that any form of computation in some undefined way leads to consciousness (= all siine waves are conscious)...... This is as flawed as any similar explanation as it is logically indistiguishable and as empirically useless as the equivalent belief: "I believe observation (consiousness) is invoked by the tooth fairy on thursdays". The only real, verifiable evidence of consciousness we have is the existence of scientists and their output. It may seem a hard task to set yourself as an AI worker... but TOUGH - nobody said it had to be easy - and it is no reason to set it aside in favour of an empirically useless "tooth fairy hypothesis for consciousness". At least I have a plan. so in relation to.... > I don't see that you've made your point. I'd like to think that I have. My AI/Human scientist face-off stands as is and I defy anyone to come up with something practical/better that isn't axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something. Scientists are no exception. cheers, colin hales --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---