The architecture they specify in their paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.09850.pdf
could be of interest to the AI hacker (MIT AI Lab type) trying to implement
and demonstrate a "conscious" robot" (even just an impressively "fake"
one).
*We agree with Christof Koch that “There isn’t a Turing Test for
consciousness. You have to look at the way the system is built. You have to
look at the circuitry, not [only] its behavior”. We would emphasize
“architecture” over “circuitry”.*
(But the "neuromorphic" might not just be architecture, but material
composition.)
It is interesting that the presence of these artificial beings may be
looked at differently depending on culture.
*Why Westerners Fear Robots and the Japanese Do Not*
https://www.wired.com/story/ideas-joi-ito-robot-overlords/
@philipthrift
On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 4:52:39 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-6 [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > The Conscious Turing Machine
>>> arXiv:
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09850
>>>
>>
>>> *DEFINITION 1.5.1. At each time t ≥ 0, Short Term Memory holds exactly
>>> one chunk, which is designated the entirety of Conscious
>>> Turing Machine's conscious content. Consciousness in Conscious
>>> Turing Machine is defined to be the awareness (i.e. the reception by
>>> all Long Term Memory). It defines the conscious content of Conscious
>>> Turing Machine to be whatever chunk is in Short Term Memory; and then
>>> defines Conscious Awareness by the Conscious Turing Machineto be the
>>> reception by all Long Term Memory processors of Short Term
>>> Memory's broadcast of that content. The gists of those broadcasts may be
>>> viewed as the inner thoughts generated by Conscious
>>> Turing Machine's unconscious processors or the speech, vision, touch,
>>> taste, and/or whatever else is received as input by the Conscious
>>> Turing Machine*
>>
>>
>> Consciousness and awareness mean the same thing, so all the verbiage in
>> the above could be boiled down to "Consciousness in Conscious Turing
>> Machine theory is defined to be consciousness" which I don't find to be
>> terribly helpful. And in the article I don't see even a hint as to how an
>> experimental test could be performed to see if this "theory" is actually
>> correct.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> Blum defined a funny sort of meaning to incomputability, which is
> basically recursively enumerable. Blum stated this was incomputable because
> the computation would not halt and there is no final output. This differs
> from Turing's definition in that one cannot determine if all things halt or
> do not halt.
>
> The video is sort of long and I am not sure if I have the time to devote
> to this. This definition of inner thought being conferred to a system which
> exhibits the outward properties of a person known to have inner thoughts is
> not much different from the Turing test definition. This is couched in the
> definition of memory or long term memory as a cache of short term memories.
> This seems rather artificial to me.
>
> LC
>
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5389e90b-0d77-4d0e-800f-65c0b7fce3efn%40googlegroups.com.
