Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th May 2012 03:53 UTC
General Development FuriousFanBoys interviews Ben Goertzel regarding Artificial Intelligence. Ben started the OpenCog project (an open sourced AI non-profit), acts as an adviser to the Singularity University, and currently bounces back between Hong Kong and Maryland building in-game AI.
Thread beginning with comment 519703
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Cursing Computer
by orfanum on Mon 28th May 2012 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Cursing Computer"
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

"Because it was not clear you were not separating those concepts."

I don't know how I could have been more clear; you seem to operate on the assumption that if you have said it once to your satisfaction, you are not going to inflect what you want to commnicate as further dialogue flows, dialogue which you engaged me in, not the other way about!


"I was going to go somewhere with it, but I guess I'll get straight to the point:

How would a computer behaving as you would expect a human to do mean it was conscious? Unless you have definitely proven that there is only one kind of consciousness and that we're the ultimate expression of it, you can't claim to be the arbiter of consciousness."

What else do you have to go by other than your own linguistic conceptualisations? How can you conceptualise something that has meaning for humans that would have no basis in human thought, human language? Would you apply it the other way round, would you defend a machine's evaluation of our not being smart perhaps despite the potential pitfalls of its own machine-mind constraints? Or would you be biased and consider it would be an a priori greater intelligence and consciousness, since it would be derived from a machine complex?

If there isn't a consciousess that we can comprehend, then it's effectively and formally absent from the human point of view. Proof, if any, would have to be de facto admissible on a human basis.


"I already have explained. Long before you entered the comments. It started with "Does an individual neuron know of the consciousness of the entire network? Likewise, would an individual human know about the consciousness of the entire internetwork?"

This seems to presuppose you have already categorised us as subsumed by the Internetwork - a nice metaphor witha certain ring to it but that's all it is, a figure of speech, I doubt you can 'prove' this either, yet you seem convinced of the argument.

While I still have pencil and paper in hand, no machine will have dominated the information world; I for one think, and do not process algorithms.

Talking to a chatbot would make more sense than continuing with your rather curious premiss that already sees us as second-tier creatures, dependent on machines for our very definition, or the validity of our mindfulness in all the connotations of that word.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Cursing Computer
by kwan_e on Mon 28th May 2012 15:05 in reply to "RE[6]: Cursing Computer"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I don't know how I could have been more clear; you seem to operate on the assumption that if you have said it once to your satisfaction, you are not going to inflect what you want to commnicate as further dialogue flows, dialogue which you engaged me in, not the other way about!


Sorry I didn't cater directly to the way you communicate. Here, I thought Thom was a main contributor, but it turns out, no, you are the one everyone should know how to talk to as if it should be common knowledge.

What else do you have to go by other than your own linguistic conceptualisations? How can you conceptualise something that has meaning for humans that would have no basis in human thought, human language?


That is no excuse to then conclude something has no consciousness. You seem to forget that it wasn't very long ago historically that people of a different colour were considered not as intelligent or as conscious as others due to their inability to grasp English.

Would you apply it the other way round, would you defend a machine's evaluation of our not being smart perhaps despite the potential pitfalls of its own machine-mind constraints? Or would you be biased and consider it would be an a priori greater intelligence and consciousness, since it would be derived from a machine complex?


How is this even "the other way around" from what I argue? The "other way around" is what I, and many others have propose: what if an alien race for more advanced than us doesn't consider us to be conscious?

If there isn't a consciousess that we can comprehend, then it's effectively and formally absent from the human point of view. Proof, if any, would have to be de facto admissible on a human basis.


So a neuron can rightly claim that there is no consciousness beyond neurons, even though we know there is?


This seems to presuppose you have already categorised us as subsumed by the Internetwork - a nice metaphor witha certain ring to it but that's all it is, a figure of speech, I doubt you can 'prove' this either, yet you seem convinced of the argument.


Or, you could treat it as an honest open-ended question as it was intended? How about doing that? Instead of seeing everything as something to prove how much better than others you are with your attempt to look intelligent?

While I still have pencil and paper in hand, no machine will have dominated the information world; I for one think, and do not process algorithms.


Prove that you think.

Talking to a chatbot would make more sense than continuing with your rather curious premiss that already sees us as second-tier creatures, dependent on machines for our very definition, or the validity of our mindfulness in all the connotations of that word.


What's wrong with positing the idea that we may be immersed in a wider consciousness?

And NOWHERE did I put us as second-tier creatures. NOWHERE did I say ANYTHING about dependence on machines.

You argument basically amounts to an Appeal to Emotion. You don't like the idea that you're not the top of the consciousness food chain, so therefore, you don't even consider any honest questions about it.

Again, I ask, does a neuron know of the consciousness of the brain its in? Can you answer that? And using your answer, can you then answer why it cannot similarly apply to a human and the human individual's place in the network?

Maybe you don't like the idea of us being "second-tier" creatures, whatever that means, but the universe doesn't care what you like. The fact you can stoop to such an argument puts you squarely with creationists, as they deny evolution because they don't like the place humanity has in that world view.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Cursing Computer
by Drumhellar on Mon 28th May 2012 19:04 in reply to "RE[7]: Cursing Computer"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12


You argument basically amounts to an Appeal to Emotion. You don't like the idea that you're not the top of the consciousness food chain, so therefore, you don't even consider any honest questions about it.

Again, I ask, does a neuron know of the consciousness of the brain its in? Can you answer that? And using your answer, can you then answer why it cannot similarly apply to a human and the human individual's place in the network?


While you point out his Appeal to Emotion, you completely ignore that you are using an Argument by Analogy.

No, the neuron does not know that it is part of a whole, but the neuron is not capable of knowing, or even imagining that it is. It is a fixed-function electrochemical device that processes chemical inputs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Cursing Computer
by orfanum on Mon 28th May 2012 19:58 in reply to "RE[7]: Cursing Computer"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

Oh dear, you don't seem to want to answer my questions either, do you - so much for openness: I am sorry but you fundamentally make humans the equivalent of neurons in a greater scheme - you are starting out from a point that is literally and formally unprovable and not demonstrable; it's less of an open-ended question than a figment of the imagination: you might ask yourself who or what is behind all those neurons that are apparently casting about unmoored in that mind of yours casting grand comparisons between things that are not observable. A thinker! My word - either they (the neurons) have consciousness of the entire operative mind resolving such things to be effective in this way or something else motivates them that isn't them and is apart from them (a bit like a creator: gasp! You are the creator of thoughts!!). In neither way is it good for your argument.

And puhlease; just go ahead and call me a Nazi; sheesh, creationists are just so yesterday.

Yours, recklessly.

Reply Parent Score: 2