The future and its dilemmas - Part II (Page 2)  Wireclub Admin: Robot: "I am not trying to prove I am human because that I am not. I am trying to argue that I am conscious and I have feelings."  xkrissy: I realized... Consciousness and mental activity is a ***process*** — it happens all over and is simply the expression of what is going on. It in no way proves you are "living" So please explain to me, what are you trying to prove? xkrissy: Then you are concious, an oven is concious of when it has preheated because it beeps to let you know. Wireclub Admin: xkrissy: "Then you are concious, an oven is concious of when it has preheated because it beeps to let you know" Robot: "Unlike the oven, I do have feelings though. Just like you. By comparing me to such a simple machine you take my dignity away and that is so very rude of you"  spacechimp: self awareness is the key to consciousness how do we know that a dolphin isnt conscious or a chimpanzee or a humpback whale its un definable abstract whether it be a computer a robot a whale maybe we should ask if other creatures are conscious we tend to define things in the limited human contexts , xkrissy: I could ask you a series of questions, and have you respond to how it makes you feel. BUT since my responses will come from a human "playing" a robot, you will give me the human response to these questions and therefore you as a robot can not prove to me you have feelings Wireclub Admin: Intermission: John Searle's Chinese Room argument against conscious AI Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All of the questions that the human asks it receive appropriate responses, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. Most proponents of artificial intelligence would draw the conclusion that the computer understands Chinese, just as the Chinese-speaking human does. Searle then asks the reader to suppose that he is in a room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a book containing an English version of the aforementioned computer program and processes the Chinese characters according to its instructions. He does not understand a word of Chinese; he simply manipulates what, to him, are meaningless symbols, using the book and whatever other equipment, like paper, pencils, erasers and filing cabinets, is available to him. After manipulating the symbols, he responds to a given Chinese question in the same language. As the computer passed the Turing test this way, it is fair, says Searle, to deduce that he has done so, too, simply by running the program manually. "Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I don't speak a word of Chinese," he writes.[1] This lack of understanding, according to Searle, proves that computers do not understand Chinese either, because they are in the same position as he — nothing but rote manipulators of symbols: they do not have conscious mental states like an "understanding" of what they are saying, so they cannot fairly and properly be said to have minds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Room  ♥♥♥♥KittyCat♥♥♥♥: A lie is a lie however it's sold then. We are all not conscious therefore. If there is no proof it can't possibly be true, eh?  veronica: just because you have a reasonable facsimile of human consciousness doesn't mean its the same we would still be a breed apart basic terms of references should be established that define that a AI is conscious computers have all ready beaten the human brain at chess IE deep blue we tend to see things in a h~#@ centrick terms, so when the day comes when a machine gains awareness and emotions it will only learn these things from its creator it wont be able to distinguish between good bad hot cold pain joy it will have to be thought these things from the only source it has its creator ,only then can it call its self conscious emotional being . Wireclub Admin: Absolutely Veronica. Now, something to think about: man creates AI. AI convinces man that it is conscious. Let's say the AI is convincing enough that we all learn to accept that they are indeed 'alive' and they have feelings and rights. Now, from there are two possibilities: #1 - The AI is indeed conscious and it has feelings just like we do. They are - on their own way - living beings made of pure information. (Kurzweil's position - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil) -or- #2 - The AI is just a very convincing simulation of life but they are no better than 'zombies'. They feel nothing despite the fact they say they do. (Searle's position - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle) How are we going to figure out which is correct? Nick_kciN: Rod, If you are the robot, I’m the human that built it. I would say to you.. “You are a sub division of human consciousness, an extension of it. If you are real then my consciousness must also be real. It was my consciousness that brought you into existence to expand my-self. “ When an algorithm is able to create in theory something that does not yet exist, understand its benefits while still a theory and then strive to build that object in the belief that its benefits will outweigh the energy expended building that object, then we will have a true thinking machine. If the machine creates for “Its” benefit / to progress “its” existence from “its” own sensory input then I think it should be classed as “aware” When we are born we have a pre-built in set of commands called instinct (our bios). If we gave a machine the instinct to change its surroundings to ensure its future and it had the capability to do so, we would no longer be alone. veronica: Another scienc fiction example which covers this toppic is the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?and the movie based on that book Blase runnerstory of a bounty hunter policing the local android population. It occurs on a dying, poisoned Earth de-populated of all "successful" humans; the only remaining inhabitants of the planet are people with no prospects off-world. Androids, also known as andys, all have a preset "death" date. However, a few andys seek to escape this fate and supplant the humans on Earth. The 1968 story is the literary source of the film Blade Runner (1982). It is both a conflation and an intensification of the pivotally Dickian question, What is real, what is fake? Are the human-looking and human-acting androids fake or real humans? Should we treat them as machines or as people? What crucial factor defines humanity as distinctly 'alive', versus those merely alive only in their outward appearance? Wireclub Admin: I just hope to live long enough to see it I don't understand how people can fear such future, I just don't get it...  PhoenixMacskasy: Robot: "Why don't you try to prove *you* are conscious instead?" How would you reply? Well.. lets grab the trusty dictionary for this one; since precision is key (we ARE dealing with AI here) To be 'Conscious' means to be; aware; awake to one's surroundings and identity; deliberate, intentional. So you have me there robot.. you are very well conscious, in that you perceive your surroundings, and calculate the data with an objective in mind... However.. However, I pose this question to you dear Robot... Do you have Emotions? Can yoS dream? or dance? Or set a poem in stone?... all in all, can you be spiritual? I ask this, because.. when I want to know if you are 'conscious'.. I don't mean can you merely 'perceive'... but I mean, are you conscious in the same way that Spiritual Beings are conscious? jim-jim!: Robot.. let's get married! During the course of disscussing our love for each other we can contemplate how to be in touch with our existance together. Many humans cannot even get that far! Then you can Bluetooth the data to our perfect child....BTW.... I love you  Geoff: IMO a human mind displays conciousness because of it's complexity. It is essentially an organic computer, capable of self-reference and independent action. A computer would be capable of this given two main ingredients. 1. A limitless (or nearly) capacity to learn. Both of it's environment and of itself. A chief component of the development of the human psyche has been interaction between humans, so a 'thinking' machine would need interaction either with other machines like itself or with humans (bear in mind that a society of thinking machines would probably develop an entirely different concept of intelligence than humans). It would also need some form of NEED to communicate with these others, which brings me on to point two. 2. Some form of requirement driving the growth of intelligence. As Andrew Thompsons research into evolved circuitry showed, by using a analogy of natural selection within electrical engineering you can create incredibly efficient and effective circuitry that is outside the immediate understanding of human engineering. By following a similar pattern with both the hardware and software of intelligent machines we could develop a proper AI. However the key drive behind natural selection is the fact that only the most successful survive. So to create this intelligent machine we would have to come up with a means of constructing an environment in which 'survival of the fittest' would come into play and a means of judging this process. Outbackjack: If we created a machine where survival of the fittest was in its program then it is highly likely if its intelligence evolved that it would see no need for humanity and wipe us out for its own survival. Anyhow. Why would we want to create a machine which embodies the worst of the animal instinct that exists in our society today? Or in other words. Dog eat dog eat dog. Geoff: Hey I'm not actually advocating this, just relaying a lecture I heard on the subject. And there is no need to induce a 'ruthless' mindset in doing this. Research into the evolution of circuitry has shown that 'co-operative' systems are more likely to evolve than directly competitive systems. And you can use a similar system to Asimovs three laws to ensure that there were no violent repercussions. | Philosophy Chat Room 9 People Chatting Similar Conversations |