Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4

[smcder]

I'm very interested in your discussions about AI and C. Constance and I seem to agree in many respects about about this topic, imo, unless I'm mistaken, but I can't search this thread just using AI as a search term. Has there been many discussions about AI and C before on this thread or the previous threads that preceded this one? Thanks.

I'm certain there are many good posts here on other topics too besides AI, so thanks for the contributions by those normally posting here. I just want to start with posts relating to AI for now, so I'm sure some of you know if AI and C has been discussed much before these recent AI posts.

Thanks for your help.

If you can be more specific, I may be able to remember parts of the discussion that might be of interest to you. I would also encourage you to check with @Constance @Pharoah @Soupie in terms of their interest in AI and past discussions that touched on it.

Of particular interest to me is Hubert Dreyfus' critique of GOFAI (good old fashioned AI) and its proponents (for example Marvin Minsky and Rodney Brooks) and the response to that criticism. Drefyus' critique is based on his interpretation of Heidegger's philosophy. He wrote What Computers Can't Do and What Computers Still Can't Do.

I am also interested in questions of computability and of substrate dependence.

 

[DissectionStalker]

If you can be more specific, I may be able to remember parts of the discussion that might be of interest to you. I would also encourage you to check with @Constance @Pharoah @Soupie in terms of their interest in AI and past discussions that touched on it.

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. I'm sure Soupie, Pharoah, and Constance will read this, so if any of you can provide links to any past posts [not the recent ones] or past thread topics that you found interesting about AI and C relating to your interests or what I might find interesting, then please do help-out if possible. Any other reading materials online [or books, etc.] would be helpful too.

I have a computer hardware background with PC's since 1980, some hobby some work, but I'm just familiar with AI software without any direct experience. I've heard about "thinking computers" and passing touring tests back in the 1980's being predicted to soon be available with "neural networking" software, etc., BUT I could never believe or understand how AI will ever get past just being a simulation of what Human programmers can do. It doesn't lead to consciousness except as a simulation, imo. I can understand how a computer can win Game Shows or Chess Matches, but that really is nothing compared to what humans do.

Anyway, these breakthroughs were predicted to happen decades ago, and, recently, with Kurzweil it's just one or two decades away. Of course, I do not believe it. I've heard it all before.

I am impressed with my Windows phone and voice recognition using a search engine, so that aspect of AI prediction searching will become amazing over time. But, still, that's not AI and C.

 

[smcder]

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. I'm sure Soupie, Pharoah, and Constance will read this, so if any of you can provide links to any past posts [not the recent ones] or past thread topics that you found interesting about AI and C relating to your interests or what I might find interesting, then please do help-out if possible. Any other reading materials online [or books, etc.] would be helpful too.

I have a computer hardware background with PC's since 1980, some hobby some work, but I'm just familiar with AI software without any direct experience. I've heard about "thinking computers" and passing touring tests back in the 1980's being predicted to soon be available with "neural networking" software, etc., BUT I could never believe or understand how AI will ever get past just being a simulation of what Human programmers can do. It doesn't lead to consciousness except as a simulation, imo. I can understand how a computer can win Game Shows or Chess Matches, but that really is nothing compared to what humans do.

Anyway, these breakthroughs were predicted to happen decades ago, and, recently, with Kurzweil it's just one or two decades away. Of course, I do not believe it. I've heard it all before.

I am impressed with my Windows phone and voice recognition using a search engine, so that aspect of AI prediction searching will become amazing over time. But, still, that's not AI and C.

You're welcome. I'm a PC guy too, or was - started working in the field in the early 90s but grew up with everything before that because of my dad's involvement.

You might find Dreyfus' critique interesting AI as a field has responded to this criticism to some degree in it's evolution - I'll post links over the weekend - it's something I'd like to review anyway.

The question of whether consciousness is computable and of substrate in/dependence also comes in to AI and C.

 

[DissectionStalker]

You're welcome. I'm a PC guy too, or was - started working in the field in the early 90s but grew up with everything before that because of my dad's involvement.

My father had an Osborne portable mini-suitcase size CP/M computer. I became a DOS freak with .COM or .BAT "programs". Those were the days.... lol.

Osborne 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DissectionStalker]

This AI tech-religion PTB media driven hype drives me nuts, and I see Kurzweil is the current Guru. If I could vomit about it I would.

Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The technological singularity is the hypothetical advent of artificial general intelligence (also known as "strong AI"). Such a computer, computer network, or robot would theoretically be capable of recursive self-improvement (redesigning itself), or of designing and building computers or robots better than itself. Repetitions of this cycle would likely result in a runaway effect — an intelligence explosion[1][2] — where smart machines design successive generations of increasingly powerful machines, creating intelligence far exceeding human intellectual capacity and control. Because the capabilities of such a superintelligence may be impossible for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is an occurrence beyond which events may become unpredictable, unfavorable, or even unfathomable.[3]

The first use of the term "singularity" in this context was made in 1958 by the Hungarian born mathematician and physicist John von Neumann. In 1958, regarding a summary of a conversation with von Neumann, Stanislaw Ulam described "ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue".[4] The term was popularized by mathematician, computer scientist and science fiction author Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or brain–computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity.[5] Futurist Ray Kurzweil cited von Neumann's use of the term in a foreword to von Neumann's classic The Computer and the Brain.

Kurzweil predicts the singularity to occur around 2045[6] whereas Vinge predicts some time before 2030.[7]

 

[Randall]

This AI tech-religion PTB media driven hype drives me nuts, and I see Kurzweil is the current Guru. If I could vomit about it I would.

Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The technological singularity is the hypothetical advent of artificial general intelligence (also known as "strong AI"). Such a computer, computer network, or robot would theoretically be capable of recursive self-improvement (redesigning itself), or of designing and building computers or robots better than itself. Repetitions of this cycle would likely result in a runaway effect — an intelligence explosion[1][2] — where smart machines design successive generations of increasingly powerful machines, creating intelligence far exceeding human intellectual capacity and control. Because the capabilities of such a superintelligence may be impossible for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is an occurrence beyond which events may become unpredictable, unfavorable, or even unfathomable.[3]

The first use of the term "singularity" in this context was made in 1958 by the Hungarian born mathematician and physicist John von Neumann. In 1958, regarding a summary of a conversation with von Neumann, Stanislaw Ulam described "ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue".[4] The term was popularized by mathematician, computer scientist and science fiction author Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or brain–computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity.[5] Futurist Ray Kurzweil cited von Neumann's use of the term in a foreword to von Neumann's classic The Computer and the Brain.

Kurzweil predicts the singularity to occur around 2045[6] whereas Vinge predicts some time before 2030.[7]

One of the things you might want to try to do here first is distinguish between intelligence and consciousness. They're related but independent. Hypothetically, there could be intelligence without consciousness. As this is a thread that focuses on consciousness and the paranormal, maybe the discussion of AI might be better undertaken on another thread dedicated to that subject. Someone tried to start one here: Artificial Intelligence | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[smcder]

We've discussed the issue of intelligence vs consciousness ... one key word you could search on (web wide, not just this thread) is "zombies" - David Chalmers makes use of them in his arguments about consciousness ... the basic point is that it's at least conceivable that everything a human does can be done without consciousness, without there being a "what it is like to be" - particularly if consciousness is epiphenomenal - something that emerges or is generated by the brain and has no causal potency.

That said, please do feel free to start new threads on any of these topics, I would be interested to follow them.

Other places you can find good discussions on these topics are Quora and The Partially Examined Life.

 

[Pharoah]

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. I'm sure Soupie, Pharoah, and Constance will read this, so if any of you can provide links to any past posts [not the recent ones] or past thread topics that you found interesting about AI and C relating to your interests or what I might find interesting, then please do help-out if possible. Any other reading materials online [or books, etc.] would be helpful too.

I have a computer hardware background with PC's since 1980, some hobby some work, but I'm just familiar with AI software without any direct experience. I've heard about "thinking computers" and passing touring tests back in the 1980's being predicted to soon be available with "neural networking" software, etc., BUT I could never believe or understand how AI will ever get past just being a simulation of what Human programmers can do. It doesn't lead to consciousness except as a simulation, imo. I can understand how a computer can win Game Shows or Chess Matches, but that really is nothing compared to what humans do.

Anyway, these breakthroughs were predicted to happen decades ago, and, recently, with Kurzweil it's just one or two decades away. Of course, I do not believe it. I've heard it all before.

I am impressed with my Windows phone and voice recognition using a search engine, so that aspect of AI prediction searching will become amazing over time. But, still, that's not AI and C.

According to HCT (hierarchical construct theory) computational processes (perhaps even those that may one day mimic cognitive mechanisms) are not sufficient to generate artificial consciousness. Such mechanisms require a foundational impetus (or 'impulse' perhaps) that relates to the qualitative merits of environmental interactions. Such qualitative relevancy is instituted by complex innate physiological mechanisms in living organisms for which there are currently no artificial equivalents (to my knowledge). Of course, the neural mechanisms is a physiological mechanism in itself and is fully integrated in any given organism's physiological system.

 

[Randall]

According to HCT (hierarchical construct theory) computational processes (perhaps even those that may one day mimic cognitive mechanisms) are not sufficient to generate artificial consciousness. Such mechanisms require a foundational impetus (or 'impulse' perhaps) that relates to the qualitative merits of environmental interactions. Such qualitative relevancy is instituted by complex innate physiological mechanisms in living organisms for which there are currently no artificial equivalents (to my knowledge). Of course, the neural mechanisms is a physiological mechanism in itself and is fully integrated in any given organism's physiological system.

I have issues with the label "artificial" as used in this context for reasons as posted on another thread here: THE ENEMIES OF SCIENCE: Why We Believe What We Believe | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[smcder]

Here is that post from Dec 13, 2014

Ufology writes:

"I have a bit of a problem with the whole notion of the label of "artificial". It carries with it an implied fakeness, something of lesser value, and in the case of intelligence that carries along with it biases about intelligence that have disturbing consequences, like in the StarTrek TNG clip I posted. If something is intelligent then value judgements about it based on artificiality shouldn't be relevant. Similarly value judgements based on sentience shouldn't be based on artificiality either. An intelligent sentient being is an intelligent sentient being. Assigning value based on artificiality is no better than assigning value based on skin color. BTW I'm not saying you are personally assigning any such biased judgement based on artificiality. I'm just posting thoughts."

 

[Randall]

Here is that post from Dec 13, 2014

Ufology writes:

"I have a bit of a problem with the whole notion of the label of "artificial". It carries with it an implied fakeness, something of lesser value, and in the case of intelligence that carries along with it biases about intelligence that have disturbing consequences, like in the StarTrek TNG clip I posted. If something is intelligent then value judgements about it based on artificiality shouldn't be relevant. Similarly value judgements based on sentience shouldn't be based on artificiality either. An intelligent sentient being is an intelligent sentient being. Assigning value based on artificiality is no better than assigning value based on skin color. BTW I'm not saying you are personally assigning any such biased judgement based on artificiality. I'm just posting thoughts."

And here's the link to the Star Trek TNG clip mentioned above: Substrate-independent minds | Page 26 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[smcder]

It linked me to the top of a post and I had to scroll down to find the clip, but I'm not sure how linking to other threads works ... that may be as close as it gets, anyway here is the clip itself:

 

[smcder]

My father had an Osborne portable mini-suitcase size CP/M computer. I became a DOS freak with .COM or .BAT "programs". Those were the days.... lol.

Osborne 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember the Osborne ... I know I saw one when it came out, we didn't have one - but we had a TRS-80 and a Commodore Pet, etc ... I remember my dad had some TI calculators, one was programmable, you ran a magnetic strip through to store your programs ... of course he was handy with a slide rule, I learned the basics, but I'd like to go back and get proficient with one now. There was also a Wang terminal that tied in to the mainframe at the college where he taught. BASIC, COBOL, FORTRAN ... I played a version of asteroids on the terminal. Wasn't there something called a Hercules? I think a green screen display, maybe?

 

[smcder]

There was also a computer kit, you built it from scratch - ... I've been looking for that for a while now, this would have been early 80s I think.

 

[Randall]

It linked me to the top of a post and I had to scroll down to find the clip, but I'm not sure how linking to other threads works ... that may be as close as it gets ...

Interesting. The link I posted takes me directly to the post with the clip. I'm using Win7 and MSIE 11.

 

[DissectionStalker]

Wasn't there something called a Hercules? I think a green screen display, maybe?

I remember a graphics card with that name. The Kaypro II was the other hot CP/M computer, and then DOS came out. At my work in a university setting we were using the new MAC's w/mouse, and the printing w/superior fonts and laser printers allowed the MAC's to take-over in such settings. We were now able to print our own published research in-house. Apple really knew how to market their computers. Send beautiful women to do the demos and offer discounts for students and faculty and staff. PC's didn't have a chance in those early years at universities. Remember the Super Bowl 1984 Mac commercial? Marketing geniuses.

 

[Pharoah]

Here is that post from Dec 13, 2014

Ufology writes:

"I have a bit of a problem with the whole notion of the label of "artificial". It carries with it an implied fakeness, something of lesser value, and in the case of intelligence that carries along with it biases about intelligence that have disturbing consequences, like in the StarTrek TNG clip I posted. If something is intelligent then value judgements about it based on artificiality shouldn't be relevant. Similarly value judgements based on sentience shouldn't be based on artificiality either. An intelligent sentient being is an intelligent sentient being. Assigning value based on artificiality is no better than assigning value based on skin color. BTW I'm not saying you are personally assigning any such biased judgement based on artificiality. I'm just posting thoughts."

Artificial means manmade in my interpretation. I was referring to AC rather than AI. AI is a little more troublesome because "intelligence" is a human concept about various mental capacities that, it is assumed, can be measured. AC is not so troublesome because consciousness is not a human concept... it is something that exists in whatever form one wishes to define and then recognise in creatures. To creat artificial intelligence is to realise something that is a human concept, whereas to create artificial consciousness is to realise something that is not a human concept but rather is something, not fake, not of value or judged to be of value or otherwise, but which exists as a natural feature of the world.

 

[DissectionStalker]

Thanks for all your ideas and suggested reading. I'm busy with offline issues, so I have little free time to read-up on all this now. I feel I need to learn more before I can understand how I might contribute to these topics, so carry on. I am interested in any ideas Soupie or Constance might want to share too. Thanks everyone...

 

[Soupie]

@DissectionStalker

For what it's worth, I do think AC is theoretically possible, as I believe human/animal consciousness (individual minds) emerges from natural physical processes.

I don't think humans can artificially replicate human-like consciousness; any potential human-created AC will be very alien to HC.

I also think it is theoretically possible for an individual HC to be "ported" to a new substrate. However, humans currently do not possess anywhere near the technological abilities to do such a thing imo.

As far as resources, I would recommend reading articles by Chalmers, Velmans, Koch, and neurophenomenologists (such as Varela and Thompson) to get a handle on the complexity of consciousness studies.

As far as AC and AI, the thread here at the Paracast—substrate independent minds—is full of good resources.

 

[Soupie]

I wonder if us thread participants could perhaps create a list of 5-10 primer articles that could serve as an intro to the vast subject of consciousness studies. Articles that could briefly touch on each of the many approaches.

I'll look at what I have, and post links to them in the near future.