On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-6 Brent wrote:
> > > On 11/26/2020 4:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > 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”.* > > > Then can they answer the question, "Is an octopus conscious?" Octopuses > have a very different neural architecture. Two thirds of their neurons are > in their legs. They have almost as many as a dog (5e8 vs 7e8). They > play. They recognize individual people. I'd say they are conscious...but > then I'm only looking at behavior. I curious as to what looking at > architecture would contribute? > > Brent > Their "architecture" is in the sense of a programming architecture (as would be needed in a "conscious" robot). *We see a kinship between the CTM and the self-aware robots developed by (Chella, Pipitone, Morin, & Racy, **2020).* (The *cognitive architecture* for inner and private speech) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2020.00016/full https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0d2/a60bd8cdda4f6f043c75dba941ade86c9843.pdf @philipthrift -- 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/33d461a5-91a5-4ba1-bbaf-c019a83cd65cn%40googlegroups.com.
