AI sentience

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, wtf said:

In other words, false? 

No, it's greater than the sum of the parts...  thought that would have been obvious to you... as in analogy.

2 hours ago, wtf said:

Of course it did. As a chair emerges from atoms, my pancreas emerges from electrons, and consciousness arguably (but not yet conclusively) emerges from brain goo.

And once you've told me that, in each case I know nothing I didn't already know before you told me.

So, what's the problem? Once you put certain elements together you get <insert object or phenomenon>. The only difference is that we don''t know the precise configurations that make life, consciousness or sentience. We can only say they emerge.

Edited May 5, 2019 by StringJunky

[wtf]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

No, it's greater than the sum of the parts...  thought that would have been obvious to you... as in analogy.

So, what's the problem? Once you put certain elements together you get <insert object or phenomenon>. The only difference is that we don''t know the precise configurations that make life, consciousness or sentience. We can only say they emerge.

What's the problem with 2 + 3 = 6? What on earth are you talking about? That's just a falsehood. Obvious to me? No. I honestly can not imagine what your point could be.

> We can only say they emerge.

Ok. So after you tell me that, what do I know that I didn't know before? You might as well say it's due to axolotls or frisbees.

[iNow]

Wait, so you’re now telling us you’re not a fan of the emergent phenomenon suggestion? Wtf. Why the sudden change of heart?

[StringJunky]

 

3 hours ago, wtf said:

What's the problem with 2 + 3 = 6? What on earth are you talking about? That's just a falsehood. Obvious to me? No. I honestly can not imagine what your point could be.

> We can only say they emerge.

Ok. So after you tell me that, what do I know that I didn't know before? You might as well say it's due to axolotls or frisbees.

What is "dark matter"? What is its composition. You might as well say it's made of axolotls or frisbees. Get the picture? I have no problem with dark matter because it fills a space in knowledge and is anticipated to be a solution for physics  but you seem  to have big problems with emergence doing the same for biology.

Edited May 6, 2019 by StringJunky

[wtf]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 

What is "dark matter"? What is its composition. You might as well say it's made of axolotls or frisbees. Get the picture? I have no problem with dark matter because it fills a space in knowledge and is anticipated to be a solution for physics  but you seem  to have big problems with emergence doing the same for biology.

On the subject of emergence, I'll have more to say later and I plan to directly address your point. Between the post in my head and the post I can write might take a day or two. I'll get to it, I did actually figure something out.

Right now I just want to talk about 2 + 3.

I've been thinking about your 2 + 3 example and I want to explain that first, I understand what you mean; and second, that I think arithmetic is absolutely the wrong metaphor and moreover is bad because it just confuses people as to what numbers are. 

The reason I can't get with your arithmetic metaphor is simply that I have a math background. The symbology "2 + 3 = 6" is not to be overloaded  vague or philosophical or ignorant reasons. You see a lot of the latter in advertising. Deliberate bad arithmetic to draw in the rubes. I actively oppose all such usages because they only serve to further confuse an innumerate public. 

Numbers are numbers. That's what's important about them. They don't represent anything at all. And the arithmetic of the small positive integers is not to be taken in vain. It's often used philosophically as an example of something that must be true in the universe even in the absence of sentient beings. It's commonly held even in philosophy that the arithmetic of the small positive integers has a special status among all abstract ideas. We do believe it must be true in all possible worlds.

So I get the point you're trying to make. I just object to the arithmetical metaphor.

That said, I do agree that perhaps 2 grams of X plus 3 grams of Y may output 6 grams of Z. But that can't be. Mass has to be conserved unless you're doing some kind of relativistic thing. In terms of chemistry, that can't happen. 

But that's not what you mean. You mean to say that substance Z, made from substance X and Y, has qualities and properties that are in no way inherent in X and Y; and that are in fact surprising in that regard. That surprise factor is what we call emergence. 

So we mix oxygen and hydrogen and get water, which is wet. That's emergence. 

Again from a math perspective I object to using quantity to try to say something about quality. I object to that use of the natural numbers. 6 is more than five. Water is different than oxygen and hydrogen. It's not "more."

People often misuse numbers that way. Increasing the aggregate amount of numeracy in the world is one of my life missions. I can therefore in no way accept your arithmetic metaphor; even if I get what you're saying. 

To sum up:

1) I understand what you're trying to say; and

2) Arithmetic on the small positive integers is absolutely the wrong metaphor; and I object to it. You want to metaphor-ize a qualitative difference. Your use of arithmetic can only annoy people who know math; and further confuse those who don't.

More on emergence later. I do have a little thesis in mind, it will take me some time to write down.

Edited May 6, 2019 by wtf

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, wtf said:

As a chair emerges from contains atoms, my pancreas emerges from contains electrons

FTFY. You could say a chair emerges from a stool. 

18 hours ago, wtf said:

And once you've told me that, in each case I know nothing I didn't already know before you told me.

And? If you know something more, please share.

 

6 hours ago, wtf said:

More on emergence later. I do have a little thesis in mind, it will take me some time to write down.

Good luck with that. 

Besides wtf does this have to do with the OP.

Edited May 6, 2019 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Besides wtf does this have to do with the OP.

It's linked with emergence.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

It's linked with emergence.

perhaps, but wtf does that mean?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

perhaps, but wtf does that mean?

Are you reading this thread? What it 'is', pertaining to this subject, is precisely what we are discussing. 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Are you reading this thread? What it 'is', pertaining to this subject, is precisely what we are discussing. 

I disagree, I see no reason to suppose human emergence will have any bearing on the type of emergence needed for AI sentience; and if we did fully understand the reason for our emergence and designed that into an AI, it wouldn't really emerge, it would just be switched on.

Besides this, 

Quote

Besides wtf does this have to do with the OP.

Was just tongue in cheek. wtf 

[Hrvoje1]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 11:12 AM, wtf said:

Was this for me?

Let me tell you once again that I agree with you and get your points, I was just elaborating on them. Not every whole is something more than the sum of its parts. If its wholeness can be exactly described by addition of contributions of each of its parts, then these parts must be of the same kind, qualitatively, functionally, whatever, so that the whole can be only quantitatively different than its parts. If that's not the case, then the question is how many cases are there left, one or two? If you combine parts of different kind into a whole, then you usually get something that exhibits properties that none of its parts have on its own. If that is true for everything, as you say, then we have just one additional case. If not, if some additional complexity of the system (of the whole) is required for emergence to appear, entering some new level or dimension when combining parts, whatever you call it, then there are two cases. Or, if we are surprised by a result of combining parts into a whole, then it shows emergent properties to us, otherwise not. That is not very objective criterion for classification, but I didn't study it properly, as I already said, there surely are people who know the mathematical description of emergence better than me.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Hrvoje1

[Gees]

FreeWill;

On 5/2/2019 at 8:33 AM, FreeWill said:

No, they work through the nerve and musculoskeletal system which is supported and regulated by the hormone system.

Can you provide the link, please?

I know that hormones regulate a lot of chemistry related processes in the body, which can have a role in surviving a scenario, but they do not control the body, they regulate! cell functions.

Do you have problems accessing Wiki on your own? It is clear from your response that you have not had the opportunity to read the page that I recommended, as hormones do a great deal more. I normally do not provide links because many people, who ask for them, don't even read them. Sometimes I think they just want to see if I can provide them; calling my bluff, as it were. Other people do not read them, they just scan them looking for anything to dispute, whether it is relevant or not. But since you asked, this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone

Remember that what we are looking for is evidence of survival instincts (self preservation) in life forms which indicates a subjective "self" that must be protected. This "self" is not dependent upon a brain as it is equally established in plants as it is in animals -- or all multicellular life. Bacteria (single cell) has some chemical(s) that do the same thing, but have a different name. It is also worth noting that pheromones do much of the same work outside of the body and between bodies, whether it be animal to animal, plant to animal, or plant to plant, creating a kind of homeostasis in ecosystems. Following is the specific list (main points underlined) that I recommended you read in my last post:

Quote

Hormones have the following effects on the body: 
stimulation or inhibition of growth
wake-sleep cycle and other circadian rhythms
mood swings
induction or suppression of apoptosis (programmed cell death)
activation or inhibition of the immune system
regulation of metabolism
preparation of the body for mating, fighting, fleeing, and other activity
preparation of the body for a new phase of life, such as puberty, parenting, and menopause
control of the reproductive cycle
hunger cravings
A hormone may also regulate the production and release of other hormones. Hormone signals control the internal environment of the body through homeostasis. 

 Please note that all of the above works unconsciously and that the underlined points all work through feeling or emotion, which causes the activity associated with the survival instinct. This indicates a high probability that "self" or subjectivity is a product of the unconscious analogue aspect of mind -- not of the digital conscious mind. There is a great deal in Psychology that confirms this, and there is the understanding that "self" or subjectivity is very difficult to comprehend. My personal thought is that it is difficult because it is analogue. 

The above evidence and reasoning is why I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that AI, a representation of the digital aspect of mind could possibly possess a subjective understanding of "self". It appears to me that AI would have to have an unconscious aspect of mind.

 

Quote

 I can count every silicon atom in every grain of sand and every hydrogen and oxygen atom in the bucket of water. I also can know how many H2O molecules are in the bucket.

Yes, sand and water have much in common. They are equally good at scrubbing a pan, and the desert often looks like it has waves that mimic the ocean -- but they are not the same and have very different properties when it comes to life.

You have missed the point entirely. Let us try the understanding with time instead. We break down time into hours, minutes, and seconds, which are digital. We can even break it down further into fractions of seconds. We can break it down more and more until it appears to be completely digitalized, but it is not because we can always expand it and break it down further. Time is analogue so no matter how many times we break it down, there will always be more between the cracks of what we have digitalized. The unconscious aspect of mind is much like that and analogue, so there is no way possible to completely digitalize it, no way to acquire all of the information, no way to completely know it.

It is where imagination and spontaneous knowledge sources from, like in the reference that I gave to Prometheus about "fluid and crystallized intelligence". If you read that link, you will find that the "fluid" intelligence seems to be pulled out of thin air, or from the analogue unconscious aspect of mind, whereas the "crystallized" intelligence is pulled from training, experience, and known knowledge, or from the digital conscious aspect of mind.

 

Quote

 

Thoughts have an individual spacetime when they occur, but they plastic so they change by time and experience, thinking, learning...

I can be aware of my past understandings (thoughts), and how they have been changing by Time.  

Thoughts can be common as well. For example when we are understanding scientific or philosophic recognitions. 

 

None of this is negated by stating that the conscious aspect of mind is digital. As long as the thought is within the mind where we can learn, grow, forget, etc., it will be digital (finite) but not necessarily static. To make it static, you would have to remove it from awareness, the mind/brain, and put it into a recording such as a book, memoir, CD, etc. 

Gee

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Gees said:

FreeWill;

Do you have problems accessing Wiki on your own? It is clear from your response that you have not had the opportunity to read the page that I recommended, as hormones do a great deal more. I normally do not provide links because many people, who ask for them, don't even read them. Sometimes I think they just want to see if I can provide them; calling my bluff, as it were. Other people do not read them, they just scan them looking for anything to dispute, whether it is relevant or not. But since you asked, this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone

Remember that what we are looking for is evidence of survival instincts (self preservation) in life forms which indicates a subjective "self" that must be protected. This "self" is not dependent upon a brain as it is equally established in plants as it is in animals -- or all multicellular life. Bacteria (single cell) has some chemical(s) that do the same thing, but have a different name. It is also worth noting that pheromones do much of the same work outside of the body and between bodies, whether it be animal to animal, plant to animal, or plant to plant, creating a kind of homeostasis in ecosystems. Following is the specific list (main points underlined) that I recommended you read in my last post:

 Please note that all of the above works unconsciously and that the underlined points all work through feeling or emotion, which causes the activity associated with the survival instinct. This indicates a high probability that "self" or subjectivity is a product of the unconscious analogue aspect of mind -- not of the digital conscious mind. There is a great deal in Psychology that confirms this, and there is the understanding that "self" or subjectivity is very difficult to comprehend. My personal thought is that it is difficult because it is analogue. 

The above evidence and reasoning is why I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that AI, a representation of the digital aspect of mind could possibly possess a subjective understanding of "self". It appears to me that AI would have to have an unconscious aspect of mind.

 

Yes, sand and water have much in common. They are equally good at scrubbing a pan, and the desert often looks like it has waves that mimic the ocean -- but they are not the same and have very different properties when it comes to life.

You have missed the point entirely. Let us try the understanding with time instead. We break down time into hours, minutes, and seconds, which are digital. We can even break it down further into fractions of seconds. We can break it down more and more until it appears to be completely digitalized, but it is not because we can always expand it and break it down further. Time is analogue so no matter how many times we break it down, there will always be more between the cracks of what we have digitalized. The unconscious aspect of mind is much like that and analogue, so there is no way possible to completely digitalize it, no way to acquire all of the information, no way to completely know it.

It is where imagination and spontaneous knowledge sources from, like in the reference that I gave to Prometheus about "fluid and crystallized intelligence". If you read that link, you will find that the "fluid" intelligence seems to be pulled out of thin air, or from the analogue unconscious aspect of mind, whereas the "crystallized" intelligence is pulled from training, experience, and known knowledge, or from the digital conscious aspect of mind.

 

None of this is negated by stating that the conscious aspect of mind is digital. As long as the thought is within the mind where we can learn, grow, forget, etc., it will be digital (finite) but not necessarily static. To make it static, you would have to remove it from awareness, the mind/brain, and put it into a recording such as a book, memoir, CD, etc. 

Gee

None of which negates the possibility of a sentient computer/machine.

[wtf]

On 5/5/2019 at 7:22 PM, StringJunky said:

 

What is "dark matter"? What is its composition. You might as well say it's made of axolotls or frisbees. Get the picture? I have no problem with dark matter because it fills a space in knowledge and is anticipated to be a solution for physics  but you seem  to have big problems with emergence doing the same for biology.

Ok. 

Emergence is a classifier. Phenomenon X is or isn't emergent, depending on how you define it. But either way, it tells you nothing. Water emerges from oxy and hydro. Tables emerge from wood. Consciousness emerges from brain goo (or is it computation that just happens to be, but doesn't need to be, implemented in brain goo?) In every case we can discuss and argue whether or not the given thing is emergent from other things. But in NO case can we say that it adds clarity, or insight, or understanding. 

If consciousness emerges from brain goo (or substrate-independent computation) we have no additional insight or understanding that we didn't have before. 

So if you want to say that X emerges from Y, it's fine with me. But what does it tell us that we didn't already know before?

On 5/6/2019 at 4:50 AM, dimreepr said:

Besides wtf does this have to do with the OP.

Someone used the term emergence. I find the term incoherent. 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, wtf said:

Emergence is a classifier.

I'll go with that and implied in this post:

Quote

What is "dark matter"? What is its composition. You might as well say it's made of axolotls or frisbees. Get the picture? I have no problem with dark matter because it fills a space in knowledge and i s anticipated to be a solution for physics  but you seem  to have  big problems with emergence doing the same for biology.

 

[FreeWill]

16 hours ago, Gees said:

Do you have problems accessing Wiki on your own? It is clear from your response that you have not had the opportunity to read the page that I recommended, as hormones do a great deal more.

I do not have a problem to access wiki on my own. I even can pick up one of my many textbooks or rely on my 20+ years of experience from the field of medicine and check any questionable point related hormones. But thanks for the link. I have read it. I have asked for it to see where from you gained your understandig. Hormones impact a lot of things sure, like control (regulate) the internal environment of the body but that is different from controlling the entire body. 

 

16 hours ago, Gees said:

Remember that what we are looking for is evidence of survival instincts (self preservation) in life forms which indicates a subjective "self" that must be protected. This "self" is not dependent upon a brain as it is equally established in plants as it is in animals -- or all multicellular life. Bacteria (single cell) has some chemical(s) that do the same thing, but have a different name. It is also worth noting that pheromones do much of the same work outside of the body and between bodies, whether it be animal to animal, plant to animal, or plant to plant, creating a kind of homeostasis in ecosystems.

Actually what we are looking to answer is about AI sentience, and you provide a lof to unrelated and inaccurate information. 

I do not see that rainforest can protect themselves from deforestation with pheromones. I can not see the named homeostasis between Humanity and Nature. 

16 hours ago, Gees said:

 

 

15 hours ago, Gees said:

Quote

Hormones have the following effects on the body: 
stimulation or inhibition of growth
wake-sleep cycle and other circadian rhythms
mood swings
induction or suppression of apoptosis (programmed cell death)
activation or inhibition of the immune system
regulation of metabolism
preparation of the body for mating, fighting, fleeing, and other activity
preparation of the body for a new phase of life, such as puberty, parenting, and menopause
control of the reproductive cycle
hunger cravings
A hormone may also regulate the production and release of other hormones. Hormone signals control the internal environment of the body through homeostasis. 

 Please note that all of the above works unconsciously and that the underlined points all work through feeling or emotion, which causes the activity associated with the survival instinct. This indicates a high probability that "self" or subjectivity is a product of the unconscious analogue aspect of mind -- not of the digital conscious mind. There is a great deal in Psychology that confirms this, and there is the understanding that "self" or subjectivity is very difficult to comprehend. My personal thought is that it is difficult because it is analogue. 

The above evidence and reasoning is why I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that AI, a representation of the digital aspect of mind could possibly possess a subjective understanding of "self". It appears to me that AI would have to have an unconscious aspect of mind.

Well, I can be aware of that I am hungry, horny, fleeing or fighting and I can be absolutely aware of when and how the body is preparing and reacting in those scenarios. 

I wonder when you said the hormones control the body,  haven't you thinking about, that for example in your underlined points the brain can easily overwrite what the hormones suggest? 

I am horny but I would never force myself on anyone, a soldier even fear the fight would not leave the battlefield, I am hungry but I would not take your sandwich, because with the brain you can control and overwrite what the hormones suggest and how the body acts. (note that no court on the world would accept an excuse: my hormones control my body and forced me to do something improper) 

You have difficulties to accept AI sentience because you have a false picture about the hormone system and the brain and because of that, you have a false picture about unconsciousness and consciousness as well. 

16 hours ago, Gees said:

The unconscious aspect of mind is much like that and analogue, so there is no way possible to completely digitalize it, no way to acquire all of the information, no way to completely know it.

 You can not possibly know what we can achieve in the future. We already know a great deal about the body and the unconscious part of its functions so I can not exclude that we will further understand it. 

 

16 hours ago, Gees said:

None of this is negated by stating that the conscious aspect of mind is digital. As long as the thought is within the mind where we can learn, grow, forget, etc., it will be digital (finite) but not necessarily static. To make it static, you would have to remove it from awareness, the mind/brain, and put it into a recording such as a book, memoir, CD, etc. 

Can you elaborate what do you mean by that the conscious aspect of mind is digital? Do you mean that instead of pictures, senses, thoughts put together by different cells from different areas of my brain, the thought, memories, knowledge I have are just numbers? How and why? What 0 would mean,  and how would it work in this scenario and how would I be aware of that? Who made this recognition you claim? Can you share a link about that? I do not find any reference to it in my neurology book....

 

And as Dimreepr well said: 

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

None of which negates the possibility of a sentient computer/machine.

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by FreeWill

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, wtf said:

Someone used the term emergence. I find the term incoherent. 

What word would you prefer?

[wtf]

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What word would you prefer?

I have no objection to the word itself, or the concept. I disagree with those who use it as an explanation or an answer. People will say that consciousness is emergent, as if they've told me something. I don't feel that they've told me anything. I don't dislike the word. I just don't understand why some people find the idea so important or meaningful. 

[FreeWill]

1 hour ago, wtf said:

People will say that consciousness is emergent, as if they've told me something.

They try to say something what is actually true.

Consciousness emegerd from inorganic matter through organic matter with a genetic information supported process, which have been lasting all together for 4.8 billion years in the solar system.

How would you call this phenomenon if not emergence? 

[Eise]

9 hours ago, wtf said:

Someone used the term emergence. I find the term incoherent. 

Incoherent? Explain, I see nothing incoherent in it.

2 hours ago, wtf said:

I have no objection to the word itself, or the concept. I disagree with those who use it as an explanation or an answer.

It is the beginning of an answer. Somebody who declares that consciousness is emergent, is in fact saying he does not believe that we must use some independent ontological entity or substance to explain consciousness. What the word 'emergent' means is clear: that a system has properties that its parts do not have. So he declares that the brain processes somehow are the basis of consciousness, no soul or 'thinking substance' ('res cogitans' according to Descartes). But as long as one cannot explain the emergent properties from the workings of the system, I agree, it is not (yet) an explanation. 

[Prometheus]

4 hours ago, wtf said:

I just don't understand why some people find the idea so important or meaningful.

I guess it depends on the context. It's like saying evolution is the reason human ears are shaped as they are. Absolutely true - but doesn't tell you anything about them. Doesn't mean evolution isn't an extremely powerful framework in other contexts though. If nothing else the concept of emergence allows us to talk about consciousness within a naturalistic framework, without recourse to a ghost in the machine.

I think that's what Eise said, but all posh like.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

I think that's what Eise said, but all posh like.

Are you suggesting Eise is a prole? 

[Prometheus]

I'm the prole here. I mean he speaks Latin and stuff, means he got eddicated.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I'm the prole here. I mean he speaks Latin and stuff, means he got eddicated.

Eddication is hard work, now I'm confused...  

[wtf]

10 hours ago, FreeWill said:

They try to say something what is actually true.

Consciousness emegerd from inorganic matter through organic matter with a genetic information supported process, which have been lasting all together for 4.8 billion years in the solar system.

How would you call this phenomenon if not emergence? 

It may be true, but it's not useful. I keep repeating this.

You say consciousness emerged from inorganic matter, but that's not proven. You have no actual evidence for that. But say I agree that consciousness "emerged" from inorganic matter. What do I know now that I didn't know before? Does consciousness emerge from rocks? Do I now know that? No. If I say water "emerges" from oxygen and hydrogen, I know nothing. I'd be better off reading a book on chemistry, which would elucidate the actual process by which oxy and hydro become water and doesn't use the word emergence.

You can call it anything you like but you aren't telling me anything. 

7 hours ago, Prometheus said:

f nothing else the concept of emergence allows us to talk about consciousness within a naturalistic framework, without recourse to a ghost in the machine.

It doesn't tell me anything. I still don't know what consciousness is or how it arises. Besides, consciousness is a terrible example because we don't even KNOW what it emerges FROM. Does consciousness emerge from brain goo? Or does consciousness emerge from computation that only incidentally happens to be implemented in brain goo, but might possibly be implemented in computer chips? The use of emergence in this context is doubly incoherent because its proponents don't even know for sure what consciousness emerges from.