Matt, my intent is not to interfere in your debate, but we are all reading it. As such, I'd like to comment:
I don' t think we should be spending our time engaging in elementary arguments. For example, I think the notion probably invalid that a thermometer (as we know it today) may be conscious. I'm proposing we discipline ourselves to move forward in a constructivist approach. For example. Why can't this forum simply accept that in a neural system exists tacit and explicit knowledge, where tacit knowledge may, or may not be available for recall? Bringing us to the point of instinct versus learning, where Karl Mannheim (1928 <== for real) contended how learning (the natural quest for applied knowledge and social competition) is a function of human instinct and part of the innate system of survival. For the most part, consciousness-in-general is an outcome of a neural structure, and by all accounts specifically located within the overall brain structure to connect to all centres of human brain functioning. Until it is explicitly active via external human functioning (reasoning and logic in action), it resembles as an (internal) explicit system of potential intelligence. As a systems person, I understand consciousness to primarily exist in 3 different states, namely: Un-consciousness (no testable awareness), Sub-consciousness (testable, tacit awareness), and Consciousness (testable tacit and explicit awareness). It seems logical that a hyper-consciousness state should exist as well. For the sake of this debate, I would like to equate the unconscious and sub-consciousness states to including the involuntary human systems, such as the auto-immune system, breathing, organ functionality, and overall sensorial system. The consciousness state; as being evidencially in action for everyday, normal functionality within society. As for the hyper-consciousness state, which may be induced via the consciousness state - as a super-consciousness state - it seemingly raises the brain to a level of hierarchical criticality and priority where it may assume dominant control over the complete human system. Having said all that, the debate is apparently being broadened to consider the potential for an automatic connectedness to the universe around the human brain. Science now accepts that such connectedness exists, as if the universe we are referring to is naturally part of us and connected to our DNA (via cells) and innate to our brains (and I'm not including all potential universes here, but one specifically only). To further our understanding, we may elect to refer to such a connection (or system) as a universal communications protocol (for our collective universe as we know it only). I contend it would be of interest to understand how logically the consciousness and hyper-consciousness, as a collective virtual system of superposition consciousness, may operate. This is a point of significant interest. With regards systems design, it would logically place such a communication subsystem for the homo sapiens (including all protocols) at the apex of the overall, systems hierarchy. Again, this has a certain ring of truth to it. However, could we design a scientific test for this hypothesis? However, we should be able to translate reasoning from the abstract to the more literal. Meaning, we should be able to position this understanding within the AGI-architectural blueprint. That is the translator function I referred to in a prior message. Do we have enough knowledge to do so on this forum? Rob ________________________________ From: Matt Mahoney via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> Sent: Tuesday, 11 September 2018 11:05 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?) On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:45 PM <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > You believe! Showing signs of communication protocol with future AGI :) an > aspect of .... CONSCIOUSNESS? My thermostat believes the house is too hot. It wants to keep the house cooler, but it feels warm and decides to turn on the air conditioner. I don't believe that my thermostat is conscious. Or let me taboo words like "believe" and 'conscious". I assign a low probability to the possibility that my thermostat has a homunculus or an immortal soul or a little person inside it that feels hot or cold. I assign a low probability that human brains have these either. When we look inside, all we see are neurons. Your argument that I am conscious is to poke me in the eye and ask whether I felt pain or just neural signals. My reaction to pain must either be real or it must be involuntary and I lack the free will to ignore it. Well guess what. Free will is an illusion too. If you don't believe me, then define it. Something you can apply as a test to humans, thermostats, dogs, AI, etc. I'll wait... Or maybe you believe that AGI is impossible. Maybe you believe that the brain processes inputs and produces outputs that no computer ever could. I don't know. You tell m. -- -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahone...@gmail.com ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M682763e8b41ec269565b337b Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
