On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:09:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/10/2018 4:12 PM, Pierz wrote: > > It's not intelligent behaviour. There are tons of things (human artifacts > that have been created to automate certain complex input-output systems) > that exhibit complex, intelligent-ish behaviour that I seriously doubt have > any more sentience than a rock, though I'm open to the possibility of some > sentience in rocks. My "method of determining if something is conscious" is > the same as most people who don't believe their smart phones are having > experiences. It's being a biological organism with a nervous system, though > again, I'm agnostic on organisms like trees. When *you're* not being a > philosopher I bet that's your real criterion too! You're not worrying about > killing your smartphone when you trash it for the next model. > > Of course this is based on a guess, as yours is. My lack of a good theory > of the relationship between matter and mind does not force me into > solipsism because the absence of a test proves nothing about reality. > Things are as they are. All people are conscious, I assume. Probably all > animals. Possibly plants and rocks and stars and atoms, in some very > different way from us. Whatever way it is, it *is* that way regardless of > whether I can devise a test for it, even in principle. > > > I generally agree. I like to resort to my intuition pump, the AI Mars > Rover, because I think the present Mars Rovers have a tiny bit of > intelligence and a corresponding tiny bit of consciousness. Their > intelligence is in their navigation, deployment of instruments, > self-monitoring, and reporting to JPL. They make some decisions about > these things, but they don't learn from experience so they probably at the > level of some insects or spiders, except that they have more language with > which they communicate with JPL. But an AI Mars Rover that was designed to > learn from experience would, I think, be made conscious in some degree. > This is because it will need to remember experiences and recall relevant > ones when faced with unusual problems. Solving the problem by using > experience means having a self-model in a simulation to try to foresee the > outcome of different choices. I think that's the essence of basic > consciousness, learning from experience and self-modeling as part of > decisions. > > Brent >
Still, purely* informational* processing, which includes intentional agent programming (learning from experience, self-modeling), I don't think captures all true *experiential* processing (phenomenal consciousness). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-intentionality/ *To say you are in a state that is (phenomenally) conscious is to say—on a certain understanding of these terms—that you have an experience, or a state there is something it’s like for you to be in. Feeling pain or dizziness, appearances of color or shape, and episodic thought are some widely accepted examples. Intentionality, on the other hand, has to do with the directedness, aboutness, or reference of mental states—the fact that, for example, you think of or about something. Intentionality includes, and is sometimes seen as equivalent to, what is called “mental representation”.* ... - 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
