Re: Infinitely Unlikely Coincidences [WAS Re: [singularity] AI critique by Jaron Lanier]
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 18/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] But again, none of this touches upon Lanier's attempt to draw a bogus conclusion from his thought experiment. No external observer would ever be able to keep track of such a fragmented computation and as far as the rest of the universe is concerned there may as well be no computation. This makes little sense, surely. You mean that we would not be able to interact with it? Of course not: the poor thing will have been isolated from meanigful contact with the world because of the jumbled up implementation that you posit. Again, though, I see no relevant conclusion emerging from this. I cannot make any sense of your statement that as far as the rest of the universe is concerned there may as well be no computation. So we cannot communicate with it anymore that should not be surprising, given your assumptions. We can't communicate with it so it is useless as far as what we normally think of as computation goes. A rainstorm contains patterns isomorphic with an abacus adding 127 and 498 to give 625, but to extract this meaning you have to already know the question and the answer, using another computer such as your brain. However, in the case of an inputless simulation with conscious inhabitants this objection is irrelevant, since the meaning is created by observers intrinsic to the computation. Thus if there is any way a physical system could be interpreted as implementing a conscious computation, it is implementing the conscious computation, even if no-one else is around to keep track of it. Sorry, but I do not think your conclusion even remotely follows from the premises. But beyond that, the basic reason that this line of argument is nonsensical is that Lanier's thought experiment was rigged in such a way that a coincidence was engineered into existence. Nothing whatever can be deduced from an argument in which you set things up so that a coincidence must happen! It is just a meaningless coincidence that a computer can in theory be set up to be (a) conscious and (b) have a lower level of its architecture be isomorphic to a rainstorm. It is as simple as that. Richard Loosemore --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Definitions
John K Clark wrote: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems to me the problem is defining consciousness, not testing for it. And it seems to me that beliefs of this sort are exactly the reason philosophy is in such a muddle. A definition of consciousness is not needed, in fact unless you're a mathematician where they can be of some use, one can lead a full rich rewarding intellectually life without having a good definition of anything. Compared with examples definitions are of trivial importance. On the contrary, in this case I have argued that it is exactly the lack of a clear definition of what consciousness is supposed to be, that causes so much of the problem of trying to explaining it. Further, I have suggested that the C problem can be solved once we understand *why* we have so much trouble saying what it is. I have given an explicit, complete explanation for what consciousness is, which starts out from a resolution of the definition-difficulty. I note that Nick Humphrey has recently started to say something very similar. Richard Loosemore --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Definitions
Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] it is exactly the lack of a clear definition of what consciousness is supposed to be And if we did have such a definition of consciousness I don't see how it would help in the slightest in making an AI. The definition would be made of words, and every one of those words would have their own definition also made of words, and every one of those words would have their own definition also made of words, and [...] You get the idea, round and round we go. The thing that gets language out of this endless loop is examples; we can point to a word and something in the real world and say this word means that. And I have no difficulty explaining what I mean when my mouth makes the sound consciousness; producing consciousness is, in my opinion and almost certainly yours, the most importing thing I am doing at this instant. I have no definition but I know exactly what those words mean and I'll bet you do too. What more is needed for clear communication? John K Clark --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Definitions
And I will define consciousness just as soon as you define define. John K Clark --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Infinitely Unlikely Coincidences [WAS Re: [singularity] AI critique by Jaron Lanier]
On 19/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but I do not think your conclusion even remotely follows from the premises. But beyond that, the basic reason that this line of argument is nonsensical is that Lanier's thought experiment was rigged in such a way that a coincidence was engineered into existence. Nothing whatever can be deduced from an argument in which you set things up so that a coincidence must happen! It is just a meaningless coincidence that a computer can in theory be set up to be (a) conscious and (b) have a lower level of its architecture be isomorphic to a rainstorm. I don't see how the fact something happens by coincidence is by itself a problem. Evolution, for example, works by means of random genetic mutations some of which just happen to result in a phenotype better suited to its environment. By the way, Lanier's idea is not original. Hilary Putnam, John Searle, Tim Maudlin, Greg Egan, Hans Moravec, David Chalmers (see the paper cited by Kaj Sotola in the original thread - http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) have all considered variations on the theme. At the very least, this should indicate that the idea cannot be dismissed as just obviously ridiculous and unworthy of careful thought. -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Infinitely Unlikely Coincidences [WAS Re: [singularity] AI critique by Jaron Lanier]
On 2/18/08, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way, Lanier's idea is not original. Hilary Putnam, John Searle, Tim Maudlin, Greg Egan, Hans Moravec, David Chalmers (see the paper cited by Kaj Sotola in the original thread - http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) have all considered variations on the theme. At the very least, this should indicate that the idea cannot be dismissed as just obviously ridiculous and unworthy of careful thought. Yes, you've shown either that, or that even some occasionally intelligent and competent philosophers sometimes take seriously ideas that really can be dismissed as obviously ridiculous -- ideas which really are unworthy of careful thought were it not for the fact that pinpointing exactly why such ridiculous ideas are wrong is so often fruitful (as in the Chalmers article). --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
