I meant, So while synesthesia is not a common example of the unconscious combination of data of the senses, the actual experiencing of the different senses does not seem like something that a computer could do.
On the other hand, the different ways we experience the different senses presents an interesting dilemma to my point of view. Why aren't all of our senses of experienced in the same way? Here, our different kinds of experiencing of the different senses seems to indicate a mechanical process (so to speak) just as we would program computer to examine visual data in a different way than it would examine audio data. And it is so easy to display audio data visually and visual data as some kind of audio stream that it seems to indicate that synesthesia is mundane (and can be programmed for us to visualize). But that is what I am saying. Combining data or relations abstracted and combined from input devices is something that can be done with a computer program (to some degree of complexity.) Trying to get the computer to actually experience sensory data the way we do is absurd waste of time. On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:40 PM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Steve said, "I STRONGLY suspect that what we perceive as consciousness > isn't anything at all like what is really happening. Specifically, a > massively parallel process comes to a decision, but all we perceive is > the single tiny thread that succeeded in intersecting with one > possible solution, while the remaining 99.9999% of the process, along > with other potential solutions, remains completely invisible to us." > > That is ambiguous. I am not talking about decision making. (I do not > think decision making is mostly conscious but) I am talking about the > mystery of living human (and presumably animal) experience. It cannot > be explained by current technology. However, there have been some > people who have denied it. I cannot tell if they are being completely > honest or perhaps they are trying to be a little too sensationalistic. > The best interpretation I have had as an explanation for their > feelings is that we have such powerful imaginations that our > experience of life (including that mysterious essence of our > experience) is just a manifestation of that imagination. I find that > opinion to be absurd, if honest. Most people all acknowledge that > there is some mysterious quality of experience that cannot be > attributed to processes of mind that we can use in computer > programming. For instance, synesthesia is an example of an > unconscious synthesis of different kinds of experience. So, while > synesthesia is not a common example of the unconscious combination of > data of the senses, the actual part of sensing, the experience of the > senses, is different than that a computer might do. While I believe we > are not near a theoretical limit of AGI, it still must be a simulation > of human or animal intelligence. It may go beyond or skills (as AI > already does in some ways) but it is still just going to be a > simulation of mind. > Jim Bromer > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:40 PM Steve Richfield via AGI > <agi@agi.topicbox.com> wrote: > > > > Jim, > > > > There are several potential interpretations of this, with Rob's being but > > one (or just a few). > > > > Continuing... > > On 6:07PM, Tue, Sep 18, 2018 Jim Bromer via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > I already regret asking these questions, but do you truly (really - > > > honestly) believe that: > > > Conscious Experience or soul or Qualia or the experience of being (or > > > whatever you want to call it) does not actually exist (or occur)? > > > > I have posted on the past that I STRONGLY suspect that what we perceive as > > consciousness isn't anything at all like what is really happening. > > Specifically, a massively parallel process comes to a decision, but all we > > perceive is the single tiny thread that succeeded in intersecting with one > > possible solution, while the remaining 99.9999% of the process, along with > > other potential solutions, remains completely invisible to us. > > > > > and/or > > > This experience (whatever you want to call it) can therefore occur in > > > a computer program? > > > > So, armed with this grossly oversimplified perception, people attempt to > > write programs to do the same things with 0.0001% of what is needed to do > > the job. Lotsa luck. > > > > Are we on the same page here? > > > > Steve Richfield > > > Jim Bromer > > > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants > > + delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2e5182d7ce6527f7-Mcd7dee90afa4d8f25a3da495 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
