meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 9:31 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 7:37 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
But you could turn this around and pick some arbitrary
sequence/recording and say, "Well it would be the right program to
be conscious in SOME circumstance, therefore it's conscious."
I think it goes without saying that it is a recording of brain
activity of a conscious person -- not a film of your dog chasing a
ball. We have to assume a modicum of common sense.
Fine. But then what is it about the recording of the brain activity
of a conscious person that makes it conscious? Why is it a property
of just that sequence, when in general we would attribute
consciousness only to an entity that responded
intelligently/differently to different circumstances. We wouldn't
attribute consciousness based on just a short sequence of behavior
such as might be evinced by one of Disney's animitronics.
What is it about the brain activity of a conscious person that makes
him conscious? Whatever made the person conscious in the first
instance is what makes the recording recreate that conscious moment.
Unless we know what it is about the brain processes that make it
conscious we can't know what it is necessary to record.
I thought the idea was that we recorded everything that was going on.
The point here is that consciousness supervenes on the brain activity.
This makes no ontological claims -- simply an epistemological claim.
This brain activity is associated with the phenomenon we call
consciousness.
So are you assuming that only a brain can instantiate consciousness?
No. All functional brains are conscious does not entail that all
consciousness comes with function goo in a skull.
Do you not believe that consciousness is a matter of what information
processing the brain is doing, but that it requires wetware? Bruno's
idea is that he may solve the mind-body problem; but you seem not to see
any problem.
No, I don't see any particular problem. In fact, if there is a
difference between brain activity and consciousness, you are introducing
some weird dualist Cartesian theatre -- the brain activity is only
conscious when it is enlivened by some extra computational magic stuff.
Of course consciousness supervenes on brain activity - but
maybe not just any brain activity (c.f. anesthesia). The question is
whether it can supervene on something else and if so, what?
I don't see any problem here -- see above: brain goo activity ->
consciousness does not mean that consciousness -> brain goo activity.
How we determine whether a person is conscious in the first place is a
different matter.
But that completely avoids the question of creating a conscious AI
program, whether it's possible, and whether it's identical with making
an intelligent AI program.
I didn't think we were trying to create a conscious AI in this
discussion. I think this is probably possible, and that the means by
which it is done will probably be quite different from programs written
to control robots. I suspect that the difference might well be in the
provision of language skills -- so that an internal narrative can be
developed.
The AI that I envisage will probably be based on a learning program of
some sort, that will have to learn in much the same way as an infant
human learns. I doubt that we will ever be able to create an AI that is
essentially an intelligent adult human when it is first turned on.
Bruce
--
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.
