No Richard, I meant...."Full Frontal Lobotomy", seeing as that has not been done before, ha, ha ! ...''Either that or this is a great title for a movie about a lab full of scientists trapped in a nudist colony'' God I shudder to think of the thought....mind you your AI's might have a thing or two to say about that....ha, ha. Right I've read what you've said about...Two completely separate mechanisms. I'm going to spend what little time I have this weekend reading Stefan's Jame5. I've started the first couple of pages and it reminds me of an Anime movie, I love the classics, 'Ghost in the shell 2' especially reminds me of the subject matter in this forum. Anyhow once I've digested that I may better understand yours and Stefan's side of the argument. Candice > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:21:47 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: > singularity@v2.listbox.com> Subject: Re: [singularity] John Searle...> > > candice schuster wrote:> > Richard,> > > > Your responses to me seem to go in > round abouts. No insult intended > > however.> > > > You say the AI will in > fact reach full consciousness. How on earth > > would that ever be possible ? > > > I think I recently (last week or so) wrote out a reply to someone on the > > question of what a good explanation of "consciousness" might be (was it > > on this list?). I was implictly referring to that explanation of > > consciousness. It makes the definite prediction that consciousness > > (subjective awareness, qualia, etc. .... what Chalmer's called the Hard > > Problem of consciousness) is a direct result of an intelligent system > being > built with a sufficient level of complexity and self-reflection.> > Make no > mistake: the argument is long and tangled (I will write it up a > length when > I can) so I do not pretend to be trying to convince you of > its validity > here. All I am trying to do at this point is to state that > THAT is my > current understanding of what would happen.> > Let me rephrase that: we (a > subset of the AI community) believe that we > have discovered concrete > reasons to predict that a certain type of > organization in an intelligent > system produces consciousness.> > This is not meant to be one of those claims > that can be summarized in a > quick analogy, or quick demonstration, so there > is no way for me to > convince you quickly, all I can say is that we have > very string reasons > to believe that it emerges.> > > > You mentioned in > previous posts that the AI would only be programmed > > with 'Nice feelings' > and would only ever want to serve the good of > > mankind ? If the AI has > it's own ability to think etc, what is stopping > > it from developing > negative thoughts....the word 'feeling' in itself > > conjures up both good > and bad. For instance...I am an AI...I've > > witnessed an act of injustice, > seeing as I can feel and have > > consciousness my consciousness makes me > feel Sad / Angry ?> > Again, I have talked about this a few times before > (cannot remember the > most recent discussion) but basically there are two > parts to the mind: > the thinking part and the motivational part. If the AGI > has a > motivational that feels driven by empathy for humans, and if it does > not > possess any of the negative motivations that plague people, then it > > would not react in a negative (violent, vengeful, resentful.... etc) way.> > > Did I not talk about that in my reply to you? How there is a difference > > between having consciousness and feeling motivations? Two completely > > separate mechanisms/explanations?> > > > > Hold on...that would not be > possible seeing as my owner has an 'Off' > > button he can push to avoid me > feeling that way and hay I have only been > > programmed with 'Nice feelings' > even though my AI Creators have told the > > rest of the world I have a full > working conscious. It's starting to > > sound a bit like me presenting myself > to the world after my > > 'Hippocampus' has been removed or better yet I've > had a full frontal > > labotomy'.> > ["Full Frontal Labotomy"? :-) You mean > pre-frontal lobotomy, maybe. > Either that or this is a great title for a > movie about a lab full of > scientists trapped in a nudist colony].> > Not at > all like that. Did you ever have a good day, when you were so > relaxed that > nothing could disturb your feelings of generosity to the > world? Imagine a > creature that genuinely felt like that, and simple > never could have a bad > day.> > But to answer you more fully: all of this depends on exactly how the > > "motivation system" of humans and AGIs is designed. We can only really > > have that discussion in the context of a detailed knowledge of > specifics, > surely?> > > > And you say the AI will have thoughts and feelings about the > world > > around it ? I shudder to think what a newly born, pure AI had to > think > > about the world around us now. Or is that your ultimate goal in > this > > Utopia that you see Richard ? That the AI's will become like > Spiritual > > Masters to us and make everything 'all better' so to speak by > creating > > little 'ME' worlds for us very confused, 'life purpose' seeking > people ?> > No, they will just solve enough of the boring problems that we > can enjoy > the rest of life.> > Please also note the ideas in my parallel > discussion with Matt Mahoney: > do not be tempted to think of a Them and Us > situation: we would have > the ability to become just as knowledgeable as > they are, at any time. > We could choose our level of understanding on a day > to day basis, the > way we now choose our clothes. Same goes for them.> > We > would not be two species. Not master and servant. Just one species > with > more options than before.> > [I can see I am going to have to write this out > in more detail, just to > avoid the confusion caused by brief glimpses of the > larger picture].> > > > Richard Loosemore> > > > Candice> > > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:02:35 -0400> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > singularity@v2.listbox.com> > > Subject: Re: [singularity] John Searle...> > > >> > > candice schuster wrote:> > > > Richard,> > > >> > > > Thank you for a > thought provoking response. I admire your ability to> > > > think with both > logic and reason. I think what Searle was trying to > > get> > > > at was > this...and I have read 'The Chinese Room Theory'...I think that> > > > what > he was trying to say was...if the human brain breaks down code > > like> > > > > a machine does, that does not make it understand the logic of the > > > code,> > > > it is afterall code. If you go back to basics, for example > binary > > code,> > > > it becomes almost sequence and you are (well some of > us are, like> > > > machines) able to understand how to put the puzzle > together again > > but we> > > > may not understand the logic behind that > code, ie: The Chinese > > Language> > > > as a whole.> > > >> > > > Although > for instance the AI has the ability to decifer the code> > > > and respond, > it does not understand the whole, which is funny in a way> > > > as you call > your cause 'Singularity'...which to me implies 'wholeness'> > > > for some > reason.> > > >> > > > Regarding your comment on....shock, horror, they made > an AI that has> > > > human cognitive thought processes, quite the contrary > Richard, if you> > > > and the rest of the AI community come up with the > goods I would be > > most> > > > intrigued to sit your AI down in front of me > and ask it.......'Do you> > > > understand the code 'SMILE' ?'> > >> > > A > general point about your reply.> > >> > > I think some people have a mental > picture of what a computer does when> > > it is running an AI program, in > which the computer does an extremely> > > simple bit of symbol manipulation, > and the very "simplicity" of what is> > > happening in their imagined > computer is what makes them think: this> > > machine is not really > understanding anything at all.> > >> > > So for example, if the computer is > set up SMILE subroutine that just> > > pulled a few muscles around, and this > SMILE subroutine was triggered,> > > say, when the audio detectors picked up > the sound of someone laughing,> > > then this piece of code would not be > understanding or feeling a smile.> > >> > > I agree: it would not. Most other > AI researchers would agree that such> > > a simple piece of code is not a > system that "understands" anything.> > > (Not all would agree, but let's > skirt that for the moment).> > >> > > But this where a simple mental image of > what goes in a computer can be a> > > very misleading thing. If you thought > that all AI programs were just> > > the same as this, then you might think > that it is just as easy to> > > dismiss all AI programs with the same "This > is not really understanding"> > > verdict.> > >> > > If Searle had only said > that he objected to simple programs being> > > described as "conscious" or > "self aware" then all power to him.> > >> > > So what happens in a real AI > program that actually has all the machinery> > > to be intelligent? ALL of > the machinery, mark you.> > >> > > Well, it is vastly more complex: a huge > amount of processing happens,> > > and the "smile" response comes out for the > right reasons.> > >> > > Why is that more than just a SMILE subroutine being > triggered by the> > > audio detectors measuring the sound of laughter?> > >> > > > Because this AI system is doing some very special things along with all> > > > the smiling: it is thinking about its own thoughts, among other things,> > > > and what we know (believe) is that when the system gets that complicated> > > > and has that particular mix of self-reflection in it, the net result is> > > > something that must talk about having an inner world of experience. It> > > > will talk about qualia, it will talk about feelings .... and not because> > > > it has been programmed to do that, but because when it tries to> > > > understand the world it really does genuinely find those things.> > >> > > > This is the step I mentioned in the last message I sent, and it is very> > > > very subtle: when you try to think about what is going on in the AI,> > > you > come to the inevitable conclusion that we are also "AI" systems, but> > > the > truth is that all AI systems (natural and artifical) possess some> > > > special properties: they have this thing that you describe as> > > subjective > consciousness.> > >> > > This is difficult to talk about in such a short > space, but the crude> > > summary is that if you make an AI extremely complex > (with> > > self-reflection, and with no direct connections between things > like a> > > smile and the causes of that smile) then that very complexity > gives rise> > > to something that was not there before: consciousness.> > >> > > >> > >> > > Richard Loosemore> > >> > > -----> > > This list is sponsored > by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email> > > To unsubscribe or change your > options, please go to:> > > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail > > > <http://www.newhotmail.co.uk>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email> > To unsubscribe > or change your options, please go to:> > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > > > <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;>> > -----> This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email> To unsubscribe or change your options, please go > to:> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; _________________________________________________________________ 100’s of Music vouchers to be won with MSN Music https://www.musicmashup.co.uk
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=57950185-dc7229
