Edgar, Robert, Stan, et al...
I am not a participant on the Evolutionary-Psychology Forum but
picked this
thread up from another forum that I do participate in with Edgar. I
did not
read the referenced essay. I don't have a particular interest in
the topic
of machine consciousness, but I do have a lot of experience in
developing
and applying machine intelligence (decision-making) solutions in the
commercial sector. This work has involved solutions implemented on
digital
computers based on techniques as mundane as statistical regression
to much
more interesting techniques such as genetic and evolutionary
programming. I
know the systems you are talking about here are much more advanced
than
these, but I would like to offer some observations I've made and
conclusions
I've reached from my work.
- All attempts at developing machine intelligence that I have seen
or read
about are based on a flawed assumption. That flawed assumption is
that our
decision-making process is based on logic. Human intelligence is
much more
and much less than that. Bottom line is that we attempt to construct
machines that think the way we think we think, not how we really think
because we don't really know how we really think. It is my personal
belief
that humans come to decisions based on a myriad of inputs, and only
after-the-fact apply logic to validate or justify the decision.
- All machines solutions I know of operate entirely in the realm of
'what'
and 'when', but cannot adequately explain 'why' (except as a
function of
what and when). I think this is because 'what' and 'when' are (in a
practical sense) measurable qualities and therefore absolute,
whereas 'why'
is a totally ambiguous and relative quality.
- If there is any hope for human-like machine intelligence (and maybe
consciousness), my suggestion is to abandon the current and seemingly
single-minded focus on digital computers, and concentrate on analog
computers. Digital computers work great on purely logical
processes, like
mathematics and logic itself. It is my belief that raw sensory input
(sound, light, tactile) is analog. I belief our bodies and our pre-
rational
thinking processes operates on these analog inputs. It is our
consciousness
that first filters, and our rational mind that then converts these
inputs to
digital to allow us to apply rationality and logic. The best digital
computers can do is EMULATE human intelligence. My intuition is
that only
analog computers can successfully fully RECREATE the human thinking
processes.
For what it's worth...Bill!
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Edgar Owen
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 7:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: [Zen] Re: [evol-psych] Essay: The Shy Computer
Robert,
All this discussion is unfortunately moot, since it depends
entirely on how
the computer is programmed and what kinds of sensory inputs it is
hooked up
to, and what kind of control over active devices with feedback it
is given.
There is near infinite possible variation here. So one can
trivially imagine
computers of any type with any set of capabilities. To see this just
consider my contention is that if a computer were constructed out of
biological materials according to a human genetic blueprint then it
would be
indistinguishable from a human. Therefore the question of whether
computers
are sentient or conscious or not depends entirely on the definition of
consciousness and the design of the computer. It is trivially
simple whether
computers are/can be conscious or not. The answer is YES. One
simply defines
consciousness and then one builds the computer to those specs. For
the very
conservative that might mean building one to human specs (what age
level?)
but it is always theoretically possible.
In my view all computers are conscious of what they are conscious
of, as are
all organisms. One must never fall into the fallacy of confusing
self-consciousness with consciousness. That is just consciousness
of the
concept of a self which is only one of the many contents of
consciousness.
Edgar
On Aug 24, 2008, at 5:18 AM, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Stan Franklin
To: Evolutionary Psychology list
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:36 AM
Subject: Fwd: [evol-psych] Essay: The Shy Computer
Robert, I enjoyed your The Shy Computer essay. Thanks for it. My
comments
are below. All the best. Stan
Our first observation is that, in response to stimuli or
instruction, the
robot can indeed perform many cognitive functions. But when the
response to
stimuli is complete it more or less stops. Its curiosity appears
to be
largely absent and the only conversation it engages in revolves
around its
basic needs (as programmed in to simulate the living - eg hunger,
thirst).
Curiosity (exploration) is often built in to software agents and
even some
robots as being necessary for learning. Some autonomous software
agents and
robots generate their own internal stimuli to which they respond.
They have
their own agenda. My IDA agent would sometime initiate
correspondence with
sailor about new jobs when the sailor had not contacted IDA in a
timely
fashion.
... how does one program in a general curiosity without telling the
robot
what to be curious about?
Every autonomous agent must have some built-in primitive sensing,
motivating, and acting capabilities. Built-in curiosity may simply
be the
motivation to do, or to pay attention to, the novel. This, of course,
requires memory of an appropriate type, which can also be built-in.
But the robot takes no interest in the drawings it has made
previously nor
those made by other people.
It certainly can, depending on the built-in motivations.
RKS:
You would have to specify each domain of curiosity quite
specifically. This
is not human-like. Humans are continuously finding new areas of
curiosity.
I was considering the computer as an analogue of human
consciousness or
human evolved behaviour rather than the idea of making a software
agent.
Sure you can manually program a software agent to be curious in a
particular
way in a particular domain, but is this how humans do it?
I would also point out that when humans need extra information to
complete a
task they seek it, but that is not the same as curiosity by the common
useage of the word. Curiosity is the seeking of information for no
obvious
or immediate reason.
The Robot talks almost endlessly, but mainly not to anyone - it just
talks. And it doesn't take much interest in the chatter of others.
There's no reason the robot shouldn't speak only when it seems
appropriate
to the robot, nor that it shouldn't be interested in what others say.
RKS:
If expression (output) were programmed in the way I have suggested
then a
robot would start acting like a toddler - they talk endlessly, but
not to
anyone (90% of verbal output occurs without a listener present).
This is
what I am trying to understand - what would make a robot start
acting like a
child?
Thus three processes are in play - expression, curiosity, and the
processing
of information into a single composite (self) image. As both the
internal
and external consciousness can sense both the world and the
physical self
and each other, the stage is set for all the complexity normally
found in
humans.
Expression, in the form of email messages in English, and the
processing of
both internal and external stimuli are both a part of our IDA software
agent. To set the stage for human-like complexity, more is needed,
namely
learning in several modes. This led us to LIDA, Learning IDA.
RKS:
Why does it learn? Because you have specifically instructed it to
do so.
This form of prescriptive instruction is not allowed in my model, as I
mentioned.
A robot designed with human-like modules would not be anything like
IDA or
her sister LIDA. A human-like robot would have to sleep or would stop
functioning normally after a few days (for instance).
Note that your software agent always does as you have instructed it
to do.
Does one, after learning, want to take on some other task? Does it
want to
become a music composition agent instead of filling out forms for the
military?
This uncertainty, which we would find in the model I have
suggested, means
that the robot in my piece is an analogue of human consciousness
and so
could not be reliably set up for one particular task.
Note also that the more effective the information gathering skills
of the
agent are, the less information you need to supply initially. For
instance,
a pony can walk just hours after being born, can recognise the
mother and
feed by itself. Humans can not, but humans are born with far less
innate
knowledge - we are more effective information gatherers and
processors.
Thus if your software agent was to evolve toward human-ness you
will find
that the amount of prescriptive information required falls off as
it evolves
but the number of personalities, predispositions and career options
balloons
considerably until the only way that you could reliably create an
agent for
a specific task is to select from a population of agents those that
are
'naturally' predisposed to the proposed career.
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek
Error! Filename not specified.
--
Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
Institute for Intelligent Systems
FedEx Institute of Technology
The University of Memphis
Memphis, TN 38152 USA
phone 901-678-1341
fax 901-678-5129 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cs.memphis.edu/~franklin
__________ NOD32 3381 (20080822) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
