Re: Consciousness. First, it has to be rationalized. The term consciousness appeared after the original term, intuit, which denotes thinking, articulated reasoning, relative recognizing, comprehending, insight, dreaming (including pilgrimaging), advanced knowledge, and so forth.
In other words, the form that a general state of consciousness assumes in humans constitutes mostly potential for creative energy, as proof of fully-recursive, integrated, systemic connectiveness. Systemically, at the lower levels of functioning (supposing that a state of consciousness was a hierarchical system of brain functionality), consciousness is first characterized as awareness, then increasing in functionality as awareness of self, awareness of others, awareness of the environment, awareness of the probable, awareness of the metaphysical, awareness of the supernatural, awareness of the fantastical, awareness of the possible. I'm not claiming this is a set order, but these "levels" denote that states of consciousness resembling gain in human function. There are "lower" levels still, where the mindbody link operates at, such as with the central nervous system detecting and reacting to nerve stimulants and chemical invaders of the body (e.g., pathogens, poisons, drugs, etc.). or by just being body awake and bodily functional, even if the brain was damaged beyond cognition. With brain damage, in particular, there are as many degrees of states of consciousness as there are types of insults to the brain. Then, the lowest manifestation, where only the lowest portion of the sensorial system of the body still functioned (e.g., an active EEG, beyond which, it would become hard to argue that any state of consciousness persisted. A state of pre-consciousness (unconsciousness) generally accepted to mean showing no autonomous awareness at all, yet having potential for it. Finally, a state of lack of consciousness, where no potential for consciousness persisted. For the sake of argument, let's accept this draft classification of consciousness, and classify AI technologies accordingly. To do so, let's assume that every higher level of a state of consciousness includes all preceding states of consciousness. While this is not correct all of the time (there are exceptions), perhaps we could for now assume that this assumption may be generally correct. The rest of the test is rather straightforward: Does broad AI (potential AGI) show proof of neural activity? Y Does broad AI show proof of systemic awareness if the brain is functioning at minimal capacity? N That, to me, delineates the boundary of the best-case scenario for a state of consciousness existing within broad AI development. The potential for states of human consciousness doesn't even exist of, and by itself yet. So, what's the next-best thing pundits such as Musk, MS, Google, et al do? They use human interaction to augment the AI functionality, creating the illusion that AI is more human like than it really is. These smart humans exploit the autonomous capabilities of human consciousness and get humans to connect to that and communicate about it, thereby constructing and spreading a humanized AI version of a state of conscious reality. When in fact, AI is effectively laying comatose in a virtual hospital bed mimicking what humans are feeding it to output. If one considered the total opportunity cost of this progress, when compared to the real problems of earth-in-trouble that have to be resolved, it's probably a major waste of critical resources. This is my opinion based on the belief I have in the knowledge I applied here. The question to ask though is: Could machines be embedded with human-like states of higher consciousness? My answer would be a resounding "Yes!" The next question would have to be: "How?" Well, there obviously are theories, and due to the potential market value of that knowledge (which is currently mostly geared at exploiting humans like a parasite would), it would obviously have to be worth a significant reward. Is AI mostly on the chopping block? I think so. The thing is, it takes longer to activate gain in functionality of AI than it takes for people to get bored with all the gadgets. Either we'll see a few, supersmart startups help tip the scales in favor of this technology, or the juggernauts of industry would have to plow on in the belief that they're going to outlast human ability to change direction at a whim. Can machines really think? Let's redefine thinking as low-level, spoon fed reasoning in an unconscious state, then perhaps they could be said to be able to. This is the thing. If the spoon was removed completely (no more bootstrapping or "learning"), would the machine be able to progress from scratch, on its own. To me, this would be a real test of reasoning. Switch it on. Leave it as is with basic architecture and no knowledge of its architecture, surrounds, identity, environment, and pepper it with a human-level test. This is what I love about Pitrat's work. He never bootstrapped, but he did upload domains of data, which had compressed information about its identity and application. Based on the results, I would say, that machine of his exhibited a state of reasoning consciousness. Many years later, this is what some articles are claiming certain machines are now capable of, but if this was true, these are special cases only, not generally true for broad AI. Even so, these machines had to be trained for the equivalent of many years' of full-time study and practice first, before being able to apply reasoning features. I still think Pitrat's machine came closest to human reasoning. ________________________________ From: Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2024 23:41 To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Time-Consciousness Machine (ITCM) Remember that Turing was not setting intelligence as the goal for AI. He was answering the philosophical question "can machines think?" He needed a reasonable definition of "think" that was appropriate for computers. GPT-4 won the imitation game 54% of the time, above his proposed threshold of 30%. If you want to argue that text prediction isn't the same as thinking, then use a different definition. Likewise for "consciousness", "intelligence", and "understanding". Turing was aware of the test's shortcomings in his 1950 paper. That's why he gave an example where the computer waited 30 seconds to add two numbers and give the wrong answer. The highest possible score in the Turing test is to be indistinguishable from a human. A smarter machine would fail by being too fast, too helpful, and not making enough mistakes. We have had that since the 1950s. The goal of AI should be to serve humans, not to pretend to be human. AI should be able to do everything that humans can do, but not be limited by what humans can't do. AI should be able to recognize and predict human feelings, but it should not have feelings or claim to have them because feelings are limitations that control us. AI should not be programmed to carry out those predictions in real time because that is indistinguishable from having feelings and also because some people believe that causing suffering in machines would be morally wrong. Of course, we are doing exactly that in the Turing test. On Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 4:23 PM Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com<mailto:jazzbo...@gmail.com>> wrote: The problems with using 'consciousness' in your design somehow are manifold. First of all it is notoriously difficult to define in humans. We had a meetup event with a writeup featuring a practically unlimited number of definitions. But then if you GO FURTHER and then apply it to your machine, that is 'conscious' claims of any nature, despite the arguments to the contrary, we all know that silicon isn't conscious in any real definition, and it immediately arouses suspicion. IMO it would be better to only claim a certain degree of structural and functional similarity with the mind. On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:59 PM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <nano...@live.com<mailto:nano...@live.com>> wrote: PS: That was in response to Matt Mahoney's rather interesting reply. ________________________________ From: Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <nano...@live.com<mailto:nano...@live.com>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2024 21:06 To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com<mailto:agi@agi.topicbox.com>> Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Time-Consciousness Machine (ITCM) You're confirming that you believe as you believe, providing your version of evidence that everything we observe is relative. You're also asserting how absolute truth cannot exist. This is the conscious you communicating with us. Yet, you believe that a poor excuse for an intelligent machine has passed the Turing test because on average it scored 54% human. This is my belief. Ever thought that the Turing test is a load of crock? It has to be, because relativity dictates that it all happened in the belief system of Mr. Turing. This is my opinion base don my belief. Is there ever an immutable truth, or are we still swimming in a petri dish? This is my consciousness asking a repetitive question. To assert that factual evidence is only possible with mathematics, must surely also be founded on belief. How do we know this to be true, other than those who believe it and practice it holding to the relative truth that their collective consciousness must be more correct than those individuals and collectives who do not perform mathematics. Seems to me, that there must exist different kinds of consciousnesses, as many as the persons you might be asking, or factored in by the numbers of those attending a consensually-based lecture or seminar. Now riddle me this. When you tape your nose and mouth shut for long enough and die, did you really die, or is it all just a matter of belief that you died? Was this state of bodily death determined mathematically? Seems to me, there's a while world of reality we're living - and dying - in, which we might not even be aware of, let alone consciously engaged with. Is consciousness then not perhaps, and simply, emotional connection, and the absence thereof, unconsciousness? I don't have a belief about this, either way. ________________________________ From: Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com<mailto:mattmahone...@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2024 19:25 To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com<mailto:agi@agi.topicbox.com>> Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Time-Consciousness Machine (ITCM) On Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 12:40 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <nano...@live.com<mailto:nano...@live.com>> wrote: In your opinion then, consciousness cannot yet be defined properly, but you know for certain that there is no such a thing as a kind of life after death, or a soul that leaves earth, even forever? How do you know such things with such absolute certainty? I don't know anything for certain. Proofs only exist in mathematics, and even then we have to start with axioms that we assume to be true. Most of what we actually know is based on evidence, and most of that evidence was collected by other people that we assume are honest. I believe the Earth is round even though it looks flat from where I am. I have seen pictures from space that I assume are not fake. When I fly to Europe, a round planet seems like the simplest explanation for why I have to set my watch ahead 6 hours to match the sun, but there could be other explanations. I can watch SpaceX launch rockets every few days from my back yard in Florida, but I can't really see where they are going. Their website videos show them going into orbit, which I assume are not faked. We have an organization with members around the globe whose purported purpose is to question the shape of the Earth, but whose real purpose is to question how we know what is true. But you ask a fair question. In the US, 73% of adults believe in heaven. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/11/23/views-on-the-afterlife/ Which is more than the 62% that believe in evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution We have to believe most of what we read or hear just to function in society. The more we are told something, the more likely it is to be true in our minds. Every religion has some form of afterlife. The Bible and Quran both say so. Hindus believe in reincarnation, with some claiming to have memories from past lives. 41% of Americans believe in ghosts and 20% have personally seen them. https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2023/10/conversation-are-ghosts-real.php So I can only explain my beliefs. I believe that all human behavior can be explained by neurons firing in our brains and how they are connected. We have LLMs that pass the Turing test, which is a stricter test for consciousness than we apply to babies and animals. I have never seen a ghost, although I met people who have. I was told in Sunday school about heaven and hell, but I stopped going when I was 10. I believe that evolution is the simplest explanation for why we fear death and why we turn to religion to cope. Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T32a7a90b43c665ae-Mfe8ed06468f969a2d9f02e87> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T32a7a90b43c665ae-M66b907901a4287e65abd65d7 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
