From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You guys are seriously irritating me.
You are talking such rubbish. But it's collective rubbish - the
collective *non-sense* of AI. And it occurs partly because our culture
doesn't offer a simple definition of consciousness. So let me have a
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What many people call consciousness is qualia, that which distinguishes
you from a philosophical zombie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-zombie
There is no test for consciousness in this sense, but humans universally
believe that they are
John, The reason why people are thinking about all this stuff in terms of
maths is
because it is not all just fluffy philosophizing you have to have at least
minimalistic math models in order to build software. So when you say
iTheathre or iMovie I'm thinking bits per send, compression, color
Jim, these are good points, and seem to be saying that: even with the
perfect metric for intelligence discovered (lets pretend), and a maximally
intelligent program built (keep pretending), that without a value system in
place that selects among future possible actions or internal
--- On Sat, 5/31/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in future, there could be impostor agents that act like
they have humanlike subjective experience but don't ... and we
could uncover them by analyzing their internals...
What internal properties of a Turing machine distinguish one
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If by conscious you mean having a humanlike subjective experience,
I suppose that in future we will infer this about intelligent agents
via a combination of observation of their behavior, and inspection of
their internal construction and
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's correct. The model of consciousness should be the self [brain-
body]
watching and physically interacting with the movie [that is in a sense
an
open movie - rather than on a closed screen - projected all over the
world
outside, and on the
--- On Sat, 5/31/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
What internal properties of a Turing machine
distinguish one that has subjective experiences from an
equivalent machine (implementing the same function) that
only pretends to have subjective experience?
You're asking
--- On Sat, 5/31/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't believe you are conscious. I believe you
are a zombie. Prove me wrong.
I am a zombie. Prove to me that I am not. Otherwise I will
accuse you of being conscious.
Exactly my
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sat, 5/31/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't believe you are conscious. I believe you
are a zombie. Prove me wrong.
I am a zombie. Prove to me that I am not.
Jim, We will eventually stumble upon this conceptual complexity, namely a
few algorithms that exceed the results that human intelligence uses (the
algorithms created through slow evolution and relatively fast learning). we
would have a smarter machine that exhibits advanced intelligence in many
Well, I probably do not understand exactly what you have meant in your previous
statements. But I do not believe that a method of study that only examines
computational structures, no matter how objective, is going to succeed in
producing higher general intelligence without also comparing them
- Original Message
From: Tudor Boloni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim, We will eventually stumble upon this conceptual complexity, namely a few
algorithms that exceed the results that human intelligence uses (the algorithms
created through slow evolution and relatively fast learning).
An interesting case of a woman who never forgets. She describes her
memories as a continuously running movie, which she can't turn off.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/05/20080520_b_main.asp
Perhaps we all have this kind of memory, but most of the time we only
have limited or no
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you utterly refused to answer my question re: what is your model? It's
not a
hard question to start answering - i.e. either you do have some kind of
model or you don't. You simply avoided it. Again.
I have some models that I feel confident that
John:When you describe this you have to be careful how much computation your
mind
is doing and taking for granted. You make many assumptions just by looking
at the pic and saying these are signs that this man is conscious. And saying
that a handheld TV is some sort of model, ya that's making
--- On Sat, 5/31/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sat, 5/31/08, John G. Rose
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matt Mahoney
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't believe you are conscious. I believe you
are a zombie.
Steve, Josh, etc.
Agree this is off-topic ... it should be posted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
instead, perhaps... so I have cross-posted it there and suggest to
continue the discussion there.
Steve:
I think that brain scanning is an interesting and important
technology/research direction, but I don't
18 matches
Mail list logo
