On Sunday, December 21, 2014 5:53:39 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > A part of its information processing system that is highly integrated >> will indeed be conscious. However, IIT research has shown that for many >> integrated systems,one can design a functionally equivalent feed-forward >> system that will be unconscious. This means that so-called “p-zombies” can, >> in principle, exist: systems that behave like a human and pass the Turing >> test for machine intelligence, yet lack any conscious experience >> whatsoever. Many current “deep learning” AI systems are of this p-zombie >> type. Fortunately, integrated systems such as those in our brains typically >> require much fewer computational resources than their feed-forward “zombie” >> equivalents, which may explain why evolution has favored them and made us >> conscious. >> > > If correct then it would be easier to make a super intelligent conscious > computer than to make a super intelligent non-conscious computer; as I've > said consciousness is easy but intelligence is hard. But the trouble is > even if the Integrated information theory is correct there is no way you > could ever prove it's correct. And I don't know why he said "made us > conscious", he should have said "made me conscious". >
What I really feel sure of, is that you'd do your own theory no injury, and almost certainly develop it further and better.....should you entertain taking a couple of concrete steps such as for instance, performing a personal reassessment of Turing's Test, and what that Test defined and what it simply did not, and could not have. One good reason is getting sight of the genius Alan Turing. There's a lot of things that get asserted or assumed round these parts, that Alan Turing simply would not have asserted or assumed in any circumstance. Basically because he would not have attached positive value in speculative conjecture involving advances with no foreseeable day of reckoning its value. There an exponentially larger prospect of leaving the overall situation greatly worsened by any action such as this, that involves, basically large assumptions. Look at his test. I only thought about his Test properly a day or two back. Prior to that I had regarded it as totally worn out and redundant long since. I had reasons. One strong one being that Turing himself had he lived would have returned to this matter many times. Many times. Had he lived, there would be little or nothing in play now that was the same unvarnished thing Turing said 65 years before. Turing would have gone on to invent theories with profound and enlightening predictions. He would have finished what he barely started in the domain of the universal principle of computation. That wouldn't have been in play for 50 years. The exception would be the Turing Test. Which is not to say it would not have superceded by much higher precision, much more knowledge rich tests. That may well have been so. But the Turing Test would still remain an extremely well designed structure, by a man who self-evidently by the Test itself, was and knew what it was to be, a genius. He was so minimal in everything he sought to break ground on. Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected consciousness well it must also detect intelligence. The Turing Test does not detect either one to any definable standard. It does not. Nor depend in any sense that it would. Had Turing defined the test differently, such that the proposal was a human would apply intelligence tests in psychometrics and I.Q. and perhaps one of the ultra high I.Q. untimed tests such as the Mega Test or the Titan or whatever, one of those questions. Had Turing designed a test to be that way, his test would have been exactly what I had been assuming it was. Low or no, noteworthy value-add. It'd be another half assed boiled egg about A.I. it's almost as if you want his test to be like that. you surely see that the price would be a test that no longer embodied the property of self-evident truth, and the tautological value given to Darwin of "Once heard understood backdated to birth independently invented by moi" in short we say of NS "it must be true". Same Turing Test. But that property is only there because Turing never steps on speculative turf like "intelligence" or "consciousness". Had, then we'd have a speculative theory. Instead he returned to the self-conception of human conscious intelligence as a human universal familiar to every human. Turing didn't say our best and brightest would nee to be there. He didn't raise the A.I. massively higher I.Q. as a problem for the Test. Because it wasn't a problem, regardless what the differences were. Because it wasn't about intelligence. Nor consciousness. It was about and only about the event an A.I. emerged that identically replicated human conscious intelligence. Identically. In the event of that, Turing observed that another human conscious intelligence.....a human with profoundly intimate depths of insight into what it is to be human. Any human would find a difference that no planet sized A.I. would be able to second guess. Consciousness cannot be second guessed that way. If it's not there. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
