On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:10:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:45 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >One could look at it that way. In terms of biological evolution, what >> has turned out to be intelligent beings (us!) are also conscious beings. > > > Yes but ask yourself why would Evolution do that. Natural Selection can > see intelligence but it can't see consciousness any better than we can see > it in others, and yet it produced at least one conscious being (me) and > probably more. Why? The only conclusion I can come up with is that > consciousness is an unavoidable byproduct of intelligence. Evolution > selected for intelligence and consciousness just road in free on > intelligence's coattails. > > >> > it got a little confusing. Is IBM Watson [ >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer) ] "intelligent"? >> > > What's confusing about that? If a man did what Watson did you wouldn't > hesitate to say that what the man did was smart, so to insist that if a > machine does the exact same thing it is not smart would make no more sense > than saying if a white man does something it shows intelligence but if a > black man does the same thing it does not. > > >> >There are some AI scientists (or SI - Synthetic Intelligence, to >> contrast with AI [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence >> ] who say to make truly intelligent artifacts they must be conscious. >> > > I believe that too because you can't have intelligent behavior without > consciousness (although the reverse may not always be true). And that's why > I also believe the Turing Test must work not just for intelligence but for > consciousness too because like Evolution by Natural Selection the Turing > Test deals exclusively with observable behavior. It may not be a perfect > test but its all we have and all we'll ever have so it will have to do. > > > How do you make a conscious robot? >> > > Easy, just make it intelligent. After that I would have no more reason to > doubt its conscious than I have to doubt my fellow human beings are > conscious. > > John K Clark > > > >
Biological evolution had its own path to intelligent, conscious beings, but what are humans doing with technology? There is something to there being two fields with their own conferences: AI (Artificial *Intelligence*) and AC (Artificial *Consciousness* - sometimes lumped with Consciousness Science, or The Science of Consciousness - it's own interdisciplinary science). I put Intelligence under the term *linguisticity *- having the ability to converse in language, having knowledge, like some Sophia (@RealSophiaRobot) is supposed to have. You would sit down and have an intelligent conversation with "her" about any subject. But the likes of Philip Goff (@Philip_Goff) and Galen Strawson say that *experientiality* is what is missing, and it is that that has to be incorporated into the picture of matter. I think the latter are right, so one must take the challenge head on: What is the language of experiential modalities and how does it relate to conscious objects? - pt -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
