On Saturday, November 24, 2018 at 5:10:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/24/2018 5:39 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:10 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> Some in AI will say if something is just informationally intelligent >> (or pseudo-intelligent) but not experientially intelligent then it will not >> ever be remarkably creative - in literature, music, painting, or even >> science.* >> > > Apparently being remarkably creative is not required to be supremely good > at Chess or GO or solving equations because pseudo-intelligence will beat > true-intelligence at those things every time. The goal posts keep moving, > true intelligence is whatever computers aren't good at. Yet. > > >> > And it will not be conscious, >> > > My problem is if the AI is smarter than me it will outsmart me, but if the > AI isn't conscious that's the computers problem not mine. And besides, > I'll never know if the AI is conscious or not just as I'll never know if > you are. > > > The question is whether the AI will ever infer it is not conscious. I > think Bruno correctly points out that this would be a contradiction. If it > can contemplate the question, it's conscious even though it can't prove it. > > Brent >
As Galen Strawson points out, there are supposedly smart people around today - like Daniel Dennett - who don't believe they are conscious: [ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/ ] *Ned Block* [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Block ] *once remarked that Dennett’s attempt to fit consciousness or “qualia” into his theory of reality “has the relation to qualia that the US Air Force had to so many Vietnamese villages: he destroys qualia in order to save them.”* *...* *This is how philosophers in the twentieth century came to endorse the Denial, the silliest view ever held in the history of human thought. “When I squint just right,” Dennett writes in 2013, “it does sort of seem that consciousness must be something in addition to all the things it does for us and to us, some special private glow or here-I-am-ness that would be absent in any robot… But I’ve learned not to credit the hunch. I think it is a flat-out mistake, a failure of imagination.” His position was summarized in an interview in The New York Times: “The elusive subjective conscious experience—the redness of red, the painfulness of pain—that philosophers call qualia? Sheer illusion.” If he’s right, no one has ever really suffered, in spite of agonizing diseases, mental illness, murder, rape, famine, slavery, bereavement, torture, and genocide. And no one has ever caused anyone else pain.* *This is the Great Silliness. We must hope that it doesn’t spread outside the academy, or convince some future information technologist or roboticist who has great power over our lives.* - 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.
