Hello Sup Forums,
i want to talk about AI. I have come to the consclusion, that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved.
This is due to the fact, that we cannot escape consciousness. We are trapped inside of it and therefore are not able to observe it objectively.
It is not possible to build a full scale map inside of the territory. It is no possible to produce an uncompressed model of the universe insde the universe. You cannot compress consciousness.
Any digressions?
Good
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
philosophy.stackexchange.com
en.wikipedia.org
aeon.co
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>This is due to the fact, that we cannot escape consciousness. We are trapped inside of it and therefore are not able to observe it objectively.
Well, many materialist philosophers like behaviorist say that there is no conciousness, just behaviour. So if you get a machine to say "ouch" when you hit their sensors then they experience pain.
It is the best possible evidence of consciousness that we CAN have theoretically. so you can say that all machines are conscious if they behave like they do... Just program something to say "ouch" when you hit it. And to answer yes when you ask "do you feel".
There is no scientific evidence any other kind of consciousness even exist. You can not scientifically measure it.
so you deny consciousness altogether?
doesn't that contradict your existence?
You believe in spooks, it's unscientific. There is no objective data showing it exists. There exists behavior of different kinds that the brain apparently provokes. But there is no scientific evidence of anything else.
>This is due to the fact, that we cannot escape consciousness. We are trapped inside of it and therefore are not able to observe it objectively.
>It is not possible to build a full scale map inside of the territory. It is no possible to produce an uncompressed model of the universe
>insde the universe. You cannot compress consciousness.
Weird analogy. Following as an example... Ancient cartographers mapped every continent (the boundries at least) before we achieved space travel and observed the world externally. As they developed better tools and methods through experience, accuracy and validity increased over time.
We need to put work into developing better tools and methods to map the mind in order to progress.
you do realize, that science is man made?
that mathematics is based on axioms, like much of the rest of our ideas? and that probably the most widely accepted axiom is, that we do have consciousness. if you think of yourself as a machine id highly recommend you take a look at George R. Price
what's your background in AI?
don't take this the wrong way, but just your bizarre sprinkling of commas makes me reluctant to take you seriously. maybe it's the commas or maybe it's the lack of supporting evidence, but you should probably lay off the conclusions until you know something about the field you're discussing.
Im genuinely interested,
How does the stinging feeling of pain fit into this? We feel it, and can describe it to eachother in agreement, but it is not behaviour
Is there pain it you don't respond to it? I'd say yes
please be more rigorous in examining my text.
i hope you are all familiar with korzibsky.
i don't mean mapping a part of it, which science definitely does well. however it is not able to achieve the full picture. you can just keep of deriving and deducing further from your axioms.
i think may argument is basically a variation on the fallacy of compression
i am not a native speaker of the english language, so please feel free to correct me.
i am no AI researcher, as i think it is utterly useless. my interest lies with philosophy
although we probably do not live in a complete construtivist/idealist universe, we cannot escape our perspective.
you cannot observe the observer and therefore cannot build a model, of how conscious observation works.
to me, this is an easy logic argument and i wonder, why it isn't commonplace.
maybe everyone should read more kant, wittgenstein, hegel, gödel, tarski, korzibsky etc
>and that probably the most widely accepted axiom is, that we do have consciousness.
You can not take that as a given. There is no real evidence to base this on. All you have is a supposed existence of this non-verbal notion. It might just as well be an artifact (or bug) that comes from the use of language to describe why people behave in certain ways.
People also hear voices supposedly, but we don't take those behaviors seriously as a reflection of reality in any way. To claim something scientifically exist there must be some way for other people to objectively observe it. Without it, it cannot scientifically exist.
>How does the stinging feeling of pain fit into this? We feel it, and can describe it to eachother in agreement, but it is not behaviour
It is behaviour. The brain is in a state where it might make a sound of pain or make a jolt with the body.
It is the only measurable response to pain. You might ask "do you feel pain" and get a yes and a degree of pain. But that is also behaviour. You can not see conciousness in other people and you can not test for it. So scientifically there is no reason to take it seriously.
>Is there pain it you don't respond to it? I'd say yes
No there isnt.
why don't you realize, that it is not possible to observe anything "objectivily" as you literally
CANNOT ESCAPE YOUR PERSPECTIVE/CONSCIOUSNESS
the "objective" tools you probably refer to were invented and built by consciousness
i fail to understand, why you misinterpret a misguided theory of scientism and then elevate it above your real personal experience
you science cucks are in deep denial
>why don't you realize, that it is not possible to observe anything "objectivily" as you literally
>CANNOT ESCAPE YOUR PERSPECTIVE/CONSCIOUSNESS
Well, then nothing is scientifically valid then.
>the "objective" tools you probably refer to were invented and built by consciousness
logically reasoned and works despite consciousness.
>i fail to understand, why you misinterpret a misguided theory of scientism and then elevate it above your real personal experience
you science cucks are in deep denial
Because it is the only way we can claim that AI can be conscious. How can anyone claim that AI is conscious if there is no way to test and observe it?
Whatever you call consciousness can not be observed in other humans. scientifically it does not exist because it can not be measured or tested. Consciousness fails the scientific method. We CAN on the other hand observe behavior so that is what we should use as a basis to decide if an AI is like a human or not.
You cannot create consciousness because consciousness create itself.
have you ever been to the chinese room?
otherwise you should definitely take a look:
en.wikipedia.org
of course nothing is scientifically valid. i mean we have no idea. what is gravitation, what is matter, how does it work? why do particles apparently have matter, black matter etc
why does it matter?
please get into philosophy of science
if you only consider those things real, that are measurable you fail to recognize that tests test tests and live in a very poor and dull universe.
that is a more idealistic stance towards the problem and not negligible at all
if we all feel so alone and want to create consciousness, then make a baby?
or chill with apes long enough?
>Deep philosophy talk
spooks are spooks
>What draws us away from God is not sensuality but abstraction.
>It is not possible to build a full scale map inside of the territory
>consciousness = having a map of the universe
wat
>It is not possible to build a full scale map inside of the territory.
... In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.
it is an ANALOGY:
1. building a full scale universe inside a universe is not possible
just like
2. building a full scale consciousness is not possible inside of consciousness
i know it is not perfect, but it is not easy to draw analogies to consciousness.
it just means the map is not the territory
...
i actually am a /lit/izen. however i wanted to share this with you. anyone researching conscious AI or the hard problem of consciousness is wasting his time.
i think thats the point, chinese room
i don't fully get it though, but its short and cool
In my opinion there is no reason to make a real consciousness because we can observe it only by its behavior on real world. thus, instead of trying to make a consciousness we should try make consciousness-like behavior. Nowadays we have in such a way only computer's logic which can be appeared in many forms, including physical body with face, which could express emotions and speak.
Deeply, I can't ensure that topic starter and others has a consciousness too! What if all of you are only human-like zombies without spirit on my loneliness world?
>What if all of you are only human-like zombies without spirit on my loneliness world?
Believing anything else is superstition. There is no scientific evidence for anything else.
what do you mean?
the chinese room or la trahison des images?
they are analogous but chinese room is adapted to the problem of AI.
it just means, that consciousness is not achieved by passing the touring test.
if you answer correctly because of the instructions in your manual (algorithm) it doesn't mean you understand chinese or are conscious you just perform tasks in a linear why. even if you would get rewarded and would adjust your manual autonomously your wouldnt understand chinese.
this is not a pipe just says: it is a representation of a pipe and not the thing itself.
>this is not a pipe just says: it is a representation of a pipe and not the thing itself.
well, isn't the chinese room a representation of chinese understanding and not chinese understanding itself?
maybe im wrong doe, like i said, i don't fully understand it
le i am so estranged and alienated
i opt for a simple heuristic: since you appear to yourself as conscious and the others are like you, why don't you just assume they are also conscious like you.
also i don't think it is possible to produce a philosophical zombie and its existence would be a refutation of physicalism itself
>since you appear to yourself as conscious
Well, since it can't be scientifically proven (and never can be) it must be a illusion.
it is a thought experiment and thereby not really a representation of anything.
the arguing is as follows:
1. there is a difference between representation and the real thing (ceci n'est pas une pipe)
2. it is not possible to create an uncompressed representation inside of a the real thing (the borges text)
3. consciousness cannot be compressed, as we cannot observe it objectively and it is irreducible
4. we musn't confuse the the representation of consciousness, that deals functionally with input/output with real consciousness as it lacks qualia and is a mere represenation (chinese room)
however, it can be proven:
in physicalism, the same matter must have the same properties, as it is bound by the same laws.
as other humans are made and organized very similar to you, they must have similar properties, like consciousness
Smoke some DMT and you will know immediately why scientists will never in a trillion years understand consciousness.
You're an idiot though. Consciousness is but a name we gave to a quality humans possess. Saying 'it doesn't exist', or it can't be proven we have this quality, is thus retarded.
Also if you look at medicine they have a fairly robust methodology for determining if a subject is conscious.
>in physicalism, the same matter must have the same properties, as it is bound by the same laws.
There is no evidence that I have any conciousness. It might just be a behavioral error. There is no scientific way to check it.
>as other humans are made and organized very similar to you, they must have similar properties, like consciousness
Many humans are unconciouss and a sponge is chemically very similar.
>Also if you look at medicine they have a fairly robust methodology for determining if a subject is conscious.
They look for reaction or behaviour. Which can be measured. The assumtion that they can say anything about conciousness is just superstition they mixed into it.
You're retarded. Kill yourself
>The assumtion that they can say anything about conciousness is just superstition they mixed into it.
No. You're assuming, falsely, that consciousness means/implies some supernatural shit, which is retarded.
>Not renaming your movies
If it was physical then it could be measurable. You can measure electrical impulses or whatever, but you can not measure conciousness (when people say conciousness they mean something different from viewing a screen with areas of a brain lighting up) so it does not exist, it's superstitious to believe it does.
Only thing that exist are electrical impulses and behaviour because it can be scientifically measured.
thanks for your informed opinion
plebtard
Not him. Consciousness does imply supernatural shit. You're just another moron who can't see it.
but the borges text doesn't say its impossible, quite the opposite, it argues that people with a less abstract way of thinking (the empire's youth) see the representation as inherently different from the real thing (they don't care about cartography)
>My interest lies with philosophy
Oh so your retarded. Thread over, nothing to see here
>hurr durr I'm above philosophy because I watched a few action movies starring Tom Cruise
Found the retard
i think borges mocks the idea of creating a full scale map but however,
my point is that it is not possible to create a full scale map inside of the thing. they would be congruent and thereby not existing. also you cannot even build a model or compressed functional representation of consciousness as you would have to observe it from an outside perspective, which may be possible with objects but not with consciousness
>because I watched a few action movies starring Tom Cruise
???
Which ones?
also he is kind of right, continental has basically turned into poetry
Philosophers are a joke who know absolutely nothing about how anything works at all when it comes to anything related to technology.
Fuck off, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about
you could have said, that you are a shill bot in the beginning
because you are saying it right now.
you are stating, that you cannot feel.
that you cannot say how pain or red or whatever feels like
you are saying, that you cannot answer the question, whether you exist, because you cannot observe anything, as that would require consciousness
maybe, i dunno, like i said i don't fully get it, its also very short so there's not much to hold on to
i think my point would be that you *could* do it, but it would always be a representation, therefore it would never be the same thing, not because you can't observe it from within, but because its very essence would be a functional copy; like the map its a drawing of the terrain, not the terrain itself
apparently you are retarded, since the thread is not over
Whatever you believe right now is based on philosophy. Science is a subset of philosophy. Now kindly, go suck a totem pole.
yeah that is the point. it is at least logically possible to build the chinese room, although i think it would be very difficult to build a really human like robot. i mean look at AI:
they can't even walk
however, this would, just like you said not entail, that they are conscious, because they are not the same thing
>Science is a subset of philosophy.
Are you being serious right now?
>Science is a subset of philosophy.
That is because you guys keep thinking WHY and IF science actually says anything about the world. Who cares, stop doing that!
You can not use the scientific method to check the scientific method so there is nothing useful to gain from it because it's not science.
Here, maybe you learn something
The very fucking we do science is the ambition we get from philosophy. There has to be a drive, otherwise we wouldn't do shit.
you cannot not taut tautological taurusses you tottery toddler
no, science literally evolved from philosophy, its not about epistemology
No, you won't create a conscious being with a computer. You can create a system of computation that arrives at logical conclusions based on input.
>Science is a subset of philosophy.
It might have been his background in philosophy that made Ibn al-Haytham invent the scientific method as a way to figure out truths about the world.
But after he invented it there is no reason to keep bringing it up again. Science is science... No need to keep trying to mix philosophy back into it again.
i agree 100% with that
>they can't even walk
lel, i love pointing this shit up to transhumanist fags
whenever they start talking about brain-chips and shit i always bring up BSOD and exploding cellphones
things like falsifiablity, empiricism and falsifiability are philosophical concepts
Answer me this you cock-lord. Why do you persist in science? What gives you the motivation?
Whatever your answer is it doesn't matter because guess what IT'S FUCKING PHILOSOPHY.
I can't believe some of you are this retarded. If you understand that 1+1=2 then you should also understand that everything we do on the whole is influenced largely by the philosophy that we choose to live by or in most cases, is forced onto us from the earliest possible age.
Consciousness is an emergent property of brains. If you were to simulate a brain, would you not have created consciousness?
*and occams razor etc
the thing is literally all areas of knowledge branch out of philosophy, philosophy is the main abstract "how do i?" that keeps inventing ways to operate with knowledge
yes, but that said. it is not possible to simulate a brain, as we cannot understand it.
please read the thread
the basic line of argument can be found in OP and here:
No. That's a cop-out argument and doesn't explain shit. It's just a way to make yourself feel better about the fact that you really don't have the slightest clue what the fuck consciousness is.
That is unfair, you already have tons of concepts like dasein, nihilism, deconstructivism and ontology.
Leave the scientific concepts alone, all you do is sully them with your mumbo jumbo nonsense.
What if I told you that I do it because it interests me?
then that would be tautological again.
why does it interest you?
If you get a robot to say "ouch" and have some carbon based soup that shows electrical imputs somewhat at the same time that is similar to a pain reaction then you have created consciousness.
There is no way to get any closer and no way to check for any of this supernatural "consciousness" nonsense. So there is no way to make a machine with such supernatural properties because it can not be tested for or viewed from the outside
actually you are right. it is not possible to simulate the brain. maybe make a baby
Everything you do is influenced by philosophy, most of it someone else's. Deal with it.
depends on how you were to simulate it
i remember reading about this once, basically Kurzweil said simulating the physical components of a brain is enough, but Paul Allen pointed out that when simulating a bird's flight it doesn't just suffice with simulating the physical components of a bird, you need to simulate the environment and also implement the whole range of variables that define how/why/where the bird flies (think of, bird eats specific worm => specific chemicals alter its brain/body/energy in specific ways, its winter/summer => bird has different motivations to fly)
also this also opens up the question of how entangled are consciousness and the outer world exactly, maybe you would need to simulate the whole universe to make a brain develop a human-like intelligence, or at least simulate an entire human body and have it interact with the real world
(you could say only the head, but i think the size/shape/health of the body plays a big role in the brain's world perception)
>This is due to the fact, that we cannot escape consciousness. We are trapped inside of it and therefore are not able to observe it objectively.
I am also trapped in a body but i can perceive another man's body just fine. So why can't I perceive another humans consciousness and simply take that aggregated data to form AI?
i have not come here to be fair, but to have an argument with logically apt anons.
/lit/ is full of shit these days
and i don't have any points on lesswrong or aspire to acquire some so i have come to you
and you have not failed me Sup Forums
i am very glad to have found
and the like and thank you for this great thread
i recommend this for anyone who is further interested:
en.wikipedia.org
aeon.co
>i am no AI researcher, as i think it is utterly useless.
abandon thread
what are u implying? That philosophers would understand consciousness if they were smoking dmt?
it doesn't matter whose consciousness you examine. you still are inside of your own and they are alike. maybe you should look into
en.wikipedia.org
Yeah, that was a really obvious thing to forget. I don't think that anything similar to human consciousness would develop even if you had a human brain but no sensory input, it just seems like such a huge component of learning that it couldn't be done without.
I think that the minimum amount of external simulation would probably not be too unbearably large, probably just enough for it to have something to do with itself. There might be quite a few more factors that are needed though. Maybe cosmic radiation affects the brain enough make it develop differently than a brain without. That also would bring up the question as to how consciousnesses in different environments would develop differently, which, I think, is probably a thing that can only be solved by experiments.
>implying to value the merits of shitting in my own head i have to try it
keep at it bro
here we go again:
it is logically not possible to build a conscious machine based on a simulation, since a simulation lacks qualia etc
----> read the thread
+ en.wikipedia.org
+ aeon.co
I'm implying that no one will ever understand consciousness.
>i am no AI researcher, as i think it is utterly useless
What did he mean by this?
this is superstition
>Maybe cosmic radiation affects the brain enough make it develop differently than a brain without
Ufff you are entering in total swampy zones, basically at this point of the rabbithole you need to start seriously considering astrology and all sort of weird variables, also to muddy it more, consciousness is, by nature, a complete black box, so no possible qualia debugging
>That also would bring up the question as to how consciousnesses in different environments would develop differently
And this is quicksand-tier, you are falling into Sup Forums's natural habitat
imo this is not *entirely* illogical cause equivalent (or at least functionally equivalent) qualia could arise in a simulated machine too if the input was similarly enough
Man this subject is so good, if only i was good enough at maths i would dedicate my life to this, but i can't honestly do more than bringing up LSD-tier insights, at some point i considered going through it via the linguistics path, but now again, im not autistic enough
>it is logically not possible to build a conscious machine based on a simulation, since a simulation lacks qualia etc
Prove it.
If you ask me "can a bunch of neurons have qualia" I think 'no' is the most reasonable answer, since I can't imagine a way for a bunch of neurons to have qualia, much as you can't imagine a way for a simulation to be conscious. But according to you a bunch of neurons very much can have qualia, despite the seeming lack of an explanation for this. So maybe a simulation can be conscious, too, and our powers of explanation is what's lacking here.
>qualia could arise in a simulated machine too if the input was similarly enough
proof?
i said imo, i have no reason to believe that if the inputs are similarly enough the simulation should not operate like its biological model
going to sleep, great thead
dropping some shit
youtube.com
youtube.com
ie. if a robot say "ouch" then it feels pain. That's right. It is the only way to check for pain in anyone else
Is this thread trolling or is this pseudo-philosophical talk the best a bunch of high school kids without degrees are capable?
Go do some real AI, if you've never implemented a Bayes' network or something as rudimentary as A* algorithms please refrain from commenting on AI ever.
Show your work or fuck off.
How hard it would be to make a cognitive AI, much like how we as humans grow?
>i am no AI researcher, as i think it is utterly useless.
>my interest lies with philosophy
You just said you werent interested in anything that is utterly useless
Just record everything that takes place in your brain for a few seconds (this is an engineering problem), make sure it is long enough for you to experience being conscious.
Build an identical brain of yours and replay your recording in it (this is also an engineering problem).
Since you were sure you were conscious during the recording, you can be sure your artificially created brain also experiences consciousness when you hit the replay button.
So you can be sure something outside your brain experiences consciousness and you've recreated it.
Just make something that says the right things and behaves similarly. You had those furby toys, they had a timing mechanism where they eventually learned a pre-programmed word after so so much time had passed. which is pretty much 99% there. Just make it more believable.