On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable
effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to
explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness.
I'm not arguing that it has no observable effects. JKC says it's
necessary for intelligence. I'm arguing that might have been
necessary for for the evolution of intelligence starting from say
fish. But that doesn't entail that is necessary for any
intelligent system.
It is not necessary for any competent system, but intelligence is not
competence, it is more like an understanding of our own incompetence,
an ability to learn, notably through errors and "dreams".
If we build computers that discuss and question their own
consciousness and qualia I'd consider that proof enough that they
are.
But is that the standard of intelligence? JKC argues
intelligence=>consciousness. What if they discuss and question
their own consciousness, but say stupid things about it?
That's what do intelligent systems: they say stupid things.
Intelligence just add the interrogation sign '?" behind them. It is
harm reduction for everybody. It helps for the next change of mind.
The bigger question, is what machines might be conscious yet unable
to talk about, reflect upon, or signal to us that they are in fact
conscious? This requires a theory of consciousness.
Exactly. That is my concern. Suppose we build an autonomous Mars
Rover to do research. We give it learning ability, so it must
reflect on its experience and act intelligently. Have we made a
conscious being? Contrary to Bruno, I think there are kinds and
degrees of consciousness - just as there are kinds and degrees of
intelligence.
It will be conscious at the place where it confuses itself with the
(relatively real) environment. OK. It depends also on its abilities,
and you can make it self-conscious by adding enough induction axioms.
Don't put to much induction axioms, as Mars Rover will get stuck in
self dialog about its consciousness and how to convince those self-
called [censored] humans!
Bruno
Brent
Jason
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:07 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 2/3/2015 10:00 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> If consciousness was just a lucky accident Evolution would
ensure that it didn't exist for long.
> Only if it cost something to maintain consciousness
Not so. Mutations happen all the time and nearly all of them are
harmful. In most animals If a mutation happens that renders it
blind that will be a severe handicap and the animal will not live
long enough to pass that mutated gene onto the next generation;
but if it happens in a cave creature it's no handicap at all and
so it will get into the next generation, the end result is that
cave creatures are not only blind they don't even have eyes, and
yet they survive just fine.
But it is biologically costly to make and maintain eyes.
In the same way if consciousness wasn't a byproduct of
intelligence and instead was just something tacked on that didn't
effect behavior (and of course renders the Turing Test
ineffective) then a creature with a mutation that stopped the
consciousness mechanism from working would survive just as well as
one without the mutation.
But maybe it was "tacked" on to integrate information processing
from different independent modules, e.g. vision, language,
touch,... which in different developmental path, say AI, might have
been organized in a hierarchy or unified from the start. The
latter might even be more efficient, but evolution can't go back
and start over, it can only take small steps of improvement.
Pretty soon nobody would be conscious, but I know for a fact that
at least one is. So either Darwin was wrong or consciousness is a
byproduct of intelligence. I don't think Darwin was wrong.
>> So carbon atoms are conscious but silicon atoms are not.
Well... I can't prove that's wrong but I really think it is.
> If you think atoms are conscious you're more mystic than Bruno.
You're the one who was talking about a special connection between
carbon and consciousness not me.
I said carbon based life-forms, not carbon atoms. I'm sure we both
agree that intelligence and consciousness come from the
organization of atoms.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
