On 22 Sep 2012, at 17:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:10:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2012, at 22:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Post from my blog:
Simple as that, really. From psychological discoveries of the
subconscious and unconscious, to cognitive bias and logical
fallacies, to quasi-religious faith in artificial intelligence, we
seem to have a mental blind spot for emotional realities.
What could be more human than making emotional mistakes or having
one’s judgment cloud over because of favoritism or prejudice? Yet
when it comes to assessing the feasibility of a sentient being
composed of programmed functions, we tend to miss entirely this
little detail: Personal preference. Opinion. Bias. It doesn’t
bother us that machines completely lack this dimension and in all
cases exhibit nothing but impersonal computation. This tends to
lead the feel-blind intellect to unknowingly bond to the computer.
The consistency of an automaton’s function is comforting to our
cognitive self, who longs to be free of emotional bias, so much so
that it is able to hide that longing from itself and project the
clean lines of perfect consequences outward onto a program.
It’s not that machines aren’t biased too - of course they are
incredibly biased toward the most literal interpretations possible,
but they are all biased in the same exact way so that is seems to
us a decent tradeoff. The rootless consciousness of the prefrontal
cortex thinks that is a small price to pay, and one which will
inevitably be mitigated with improvements in technology. In its
crossword puzzle universe of Boolean games, something like a lack
of personhood or feeling is a minor glitch, an aesthetic ‘to be
continued’ which need only be set aside for now while the more
important problems of function can be solved.
It seems that the ocean of feelings and dreams which were tapped
into by Freud, Jung, and others in the 20th century have been
entirely dismissed in favor of a more instrumental approach.
Simulation of behaviors. Turing machine emulation. This approach
has the fatal flaw of drawing the mind upside down, with intellect
and logic at the base that builds up to complex mimicry of mood and
inflection. The mind has an ego and doesn’t know it. Thinking has
promoted itself to a cause of feeling and experience rather than a
highly specialized and esoteric elaboration of personhood.
We can see this of course in developmental psychology and
anthropology. Babies don’t come out of the womb with a flashing
cursor, ready to accept programming passively. Primitive societies
don’t begin with impersonal state bureaucracies and progress to
chiefdoms. We seem to have to learn this lesson again and again
that our humanity is not a product of strategy and programming, but
of authenticity and direct participation.
When people talk about building advanced robots and computers which
will be indistinguishable from or far surpass human beings, they
always seem to project a human agenda on them. We define
intelligence outside of ourselves as that which serves a function
to us, not to the being itself. This again suggests to me the
reflective quality of the mind, of being blinded by the reflection
of our own eyes in our sunglasses. Thoughts have a hard time
assessing the feeling behind themselves, and an even harder time
admitting that it matters.
I think we see this more and more in all areas of our lives - an
overconfidence in theoretical approaches and a continuous
disconnecting with the results. We keep hoping that it will work
this time, even though we probably know that it never will. It’s as
if our collective psyche is waiting for our deluded minds to catch
up. Waiting for us to figure out that in spite of the graphs and
tests and retooling, the machine is really not working any better.
You are right. We have very often dismissed emotion, feelings and
consciousness in human.
Unfortunately, dismissing emotion feelings and consciousness in
machine, will not help.
Bruno
You don't see a connection between the two? There is no chance of
machine feelings being a psychological projection?
There is. But as far as we are concern with the "emotion dismissing"
problem, projecting emotion them, when they behave in some way, will
be less dismissing emotion that attribuating puppetness by decision.
I'm not opposed to the idea of computers having emotions in theory,
but the evidence we've seen so far shows precisely the opposite. If
inorganic machines could grow and change and learn by themselves,
then we would likely see a single example of just that. What we see
instead is that even with many brilliant minds working hard with the
finest technology, face a perpetual uphill battle. In spite of
Moore's Law and 30 years of commercial explosion, there is still no
sign of any authentic feeling or intentional act by a program.
Because the shadows of those experiences, which exists
(epistemologically) in the comp theory, are still confined in complex
mathematical theorems. But PA thinks like you and me, I think. From my
perspective you are just not listening to such machines, and from what
seems to me arbitrary, you have just decide that they are zombie, when
I think, they just lack our kind of long rich story, but they don't
lack a soul. You could look at baby and decide that they are
completely stupid, *at first sight*.
Give them time. You can't compare millions years evolution machinery,
with the hundred thousand years of machine evolution, or the one
century year of the universal machine.
Bruno
What we see is exactly what I would expect from a fundamentally
flawed assumption being dragged out - like Ptolemaic astronomy...it
just isn't working out because we aren't approaching it the right
way. We are trying to build a house on top of a floating roof.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2h-lGPs0zXwJ
.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-
li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/H0M1Zfk2tZoJ
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
