On 2/1/2015 4:46 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 05:57:10PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:44 PM, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >And then there's consciousness, which everybody (presumably) knows what
> >it is, but nobody knows how to test for
> >
>
>Not true, EVERYBODY know how to test for consciousness, intelligence
>behavior is the test, and and without exception every person on this list
>has used that test at least once every single day of their lives. The
>entire thing is completely uncontroversial UNTIL you try to apply it to a
>computer, and then all of a sudden people insist on changing the rules of
>the game because they don't like who's winning.
>
Not quite true. We also know that other humans are constructed the
same way we are. I think that if an ANN (artificial neural network)
exhibits enough general intelligence to pass the Turing test, it would
be considered conscious by most people[1]. But that is not the case right
now. The computer programs passing the Turing test right now are
faking it, Eliza style.
Conversely, as we get to understand the neural basis of our own brains
better, then potentially differently structured machines might be
admitted to being conscious.
I expect that it will turn out there are different ways of attaining general AI and some
ways will lend themselves, by comparison to human brain processes, to saying, "That
thought's conscious and that one's subconscious." while other in other architectures there
will be no way to make that analogy.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
