Re: [agi] Honestly?
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.% 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 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 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.% 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-M967ba2121665df4041e60c87 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Honestly?
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 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.% 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 > Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2e5182d7ce6527f7-Mbfa25b36c50c2ce5d986fbd4 > Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2e5182d7ce6527f7-M239eaacb95adb39b7018ed6b Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Honestly?
> I already regret asking these questions, Why would you regret that? Best questions ever :) > 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) Interesting words. Never heard "Qualia" before. Thanks > does not actually exist (or occur)? I absolutely believe it occurs (in us, and possibly many other beings). > This experience (whatever you want to call it) can therefore occur in a computer program? Well. Honestly? I believe it could. But that takes a soul willing to "incarnate". And a worthwhile system to incarnate into. Which I (and others) plan to build. Maybe it's possible? I choose not to believe in limits. Oh and probably we should call incarnation "inmetalation" in this instance? Someone with better latin help me out here. :) Many greetings, Stefan On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 03:07, Jim Bromer via AGI 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)? > and/or > This experience (whatever you want to call it) can therefore occur in > a computer program? > Jim Bromer -- Stefan Reich BotCompany.de // Java-based operating systems -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2e5182d7ce6527f7-M8b456c726e31728e9394ca29 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
RE: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)
> -Original Message- > From: Matt Mahoney via AGI > > What do you think qualia is? How would you know if something was > experiencing it? > You could look at qualia from a multi-systems signaling and a compressionist standpoint. They're compressed impressed samples of the environment and other agents. Somewhat uniquely compressed by the agent due to genetic diversity and experience so the qualia have similarities and differences across agents. And the genetic tree is exhaustively searching. Similarly conscious agents would infer similar qualia experience of other agents but not exactly the same even if genetically identical due to differing knowledge and experience. Also the genetic tree is modelling the environment but this type of model is an approximation and this contributes to the need for compressed sampling from agent variety. So one could suggest a consciousness topology influenced by agent environmental complexity and communication complexity. And the topology must have coherent and symbiotic structure that contribute to agent efficiency... meaning if effects the species intelligence. An agent not experiencing similar qualia though would exhibit some level of decoherence related to similar agents until their consciousness model is effectively equal. How do you test if a bot is a bot? You test it's reaction and if the reaction is expected. The bot tries to predict what the reaction should be but cannot predict all expected reactions. The more perfect the model the more difficult to detect. For example, CAPTCHA. Not working well now since the bots are better so the industry is moving to biometric visual. What comes after that? Turing test becomes qualia test. But it's all related to communication protocol due to separateness since full qualia cannot be transmitted they are further lossily compressed and symbolized for transmission, an imperfect process. But agents need to communicate experience so imperfect communication is another reason for consciousness. We reference symbols of qualia in other people's or, multi-agent consciousness... or the general consciousness. John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M4095ccfa5bca7ac872f13500 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Honestly?
Human existence on earth left overwhelming evidence of such a conscious experience. Correlated writings over the ages being one such an example of an expression of consciousness. It has not manifested in other, earthly species. Second, the focus in soft-systems engineering is to capture the abstract aspects of a system in a computational format. In that case, the evidence of a consciousness, relative to a domain, is captured via shared thoughts, speech, and emotions. These artifacts of a functional consciousness may be in existential tacit and/or explicit knowledge formats. The term existential is intentional in order to connect the philosophical with the logical with the physical realms via a platform of reasoning (no matter how subtle or abstract). This approach would extend the function of consciousness to include other species on earth as well. I don't think consciousness could be computed per se. Supposing that the human brain represented as a wetware, computational platform, then a similar, non-wetware computational platform (still a binary system) should theoretically have the potential to exhibit artifacts of an existential consciousness (not idle words at all). Therefore, the hypothesis of the relationship between non-biological binary systems and an exhibited, biological-like consciousness remains to be put to the test. Robert Benjamin From: Jim Bromer via AGI Sent: Wednesday, 19 September 2018 3:05 AM To: a...@listbox.com Subject: [agi] Honestly? 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)? and/or This experience (whatever you want to call it) can therefore occur in a computer program? Jim Bromer -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2e5182d7ce6527f7-M934956e0ca0b5458c4f1734e Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
