Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible

[dimreepr]

The fundamental flaw with such a statement is, we can't know what we don't know; it's basically an axiom.

For instance, what is artificial?

12 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Let's start with intentionality.

OK let's, if I program a machine to learn for itself, am I giving it an intention? And am I responsible for it's understanding? 

[studiot]

7 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

p.s. Optical illusions and hallucinations refer to completely different things.

Agreed.

 

13 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Let's take the example of satellite navigation. If you just look at the practical success and usefulness of it, you may think "I have discovered definite laws surrounding orbiting entities and everything acting upon it and within it" because the satellite doesn't deviate from course. Well, satellite navigation doesn't depend on relativistic effects.

We have a real expert on this subject as a member.

I will lask @swansont put you right on your grasp of Physics.

Edited September 14, 2023 by studiot

[Genady]

Impractical, maybe. But impossible in principle it's certainly not.

[swansont]

16 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Let's take the example of satellite navigation. If you just look at the practical success and usefulness of it, you may think "I have discovered definite laws surrounding orbiting entities and everything acting upon it and within it" because the satellite doesn't deviate from course. Well, satellite navigation doesn't depend on relativistic effects. You think you're going to "build a pseudobrain" and get anywhere even close? Then which arbitrary stopping points of practical "close enough" are you using? So everything that you don't see doesn't count? There is absolutely zero assurance just from outward symptoms. You can have a theoretical AGI that performs every task you can throw at it and it'd still doesn't have to be conscious (which points to other issues as well...)

GPS most definitely depends on relativity; the clocks have to be adjusted for kinematic and gravitational time dilation to run at the same rate as the clocks on the ground.

[AIkonoklazt]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The fundamental flaw with such a statement is, we can't know what we don't know; it's basically an axiom.

For instance, what is artificial?

OK let's, if I program a machine to learn for itself, am I giving it an intention? And am I responsible for it's understanding? 

First definition: "Humanly contrived" - Merriam Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial

Edit: Actually, a much better word to look at is artifact: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artifact  Look at sense 2A. Human agency is involved. If you look at the rest of my article, you will see the importance.

There are multiple issues with your last sentence. I've covered those in my article. Do people read my argument before engaging with it?

1) Machines don't learn. AI textbooks readily admit to this. The term isn't being used in its usual English sense of the word:

Quote

AI textbooks readily admit that the “learning” in “machine learning” isn’t referring to learning in the usual sense of the word[8]:

“For example, a database system that allows users to update data entries would fit our definition of a learning system: it improves its performance at answering database queries based on the experience gained from database updates. Rather than worry about whether this type of activity falls under the usual informal conversational meaning of the word “learning,” we will simply adopt our technical definition of the class of programs that improve through experience.”

...The textbook applied the definition to a spreadsheet. Yes, updating Microsoft Excel is in this sense "machine learning."

2) Intention involves a subject matter. There's no such thing in an algorithm. A machine's internal operation is utterly isolated from external reality. It is dealing with a one-dimensional operative reality that is divorced from referents and thus isolated from the causal world. I gave two demonstrations illustrating this (The "Chinese Room" reference in the first demonstration was referring to Searle's famous Chinese Room Argument demonstrating semantics to be insufficient for syntax):

Quote

You memorize a whole bunch of shapes. Then, you memorize the order the shapes are supposed to go in so that if you see a bunch of shapes in a certain order, you would “answer” by picking a bunch of shapes in another prescribed order. Now, did you just learn any meaning behind any language?

All programs manipulate symbols this way. Program codes themselves contain no meaning. To machines, they are sequences to be executed with their payloads and nothing more, just like how the Chinese characters in the Chinese Room are payloads to be processed according to sequencing instructions given to the Chinese-illiterate person and nothing more.

Not only does it generalizes programming code, the Symbol Manipulator thought experiment, with its sequences and payloads, is a generalization of an algorithm: “A process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.[7]”

Quote

The relationship between the shapes and sequences is arbitrarily defined and not causally determined. Operational rules are what’s simply programmed in, not necessarily matching any sort of worldly causation because any such links would be an accidental feature of the program and not an essential feature (i.e., by happenstance and not necessity.) The program could be given any input to resolve and the machine would follow not because it “understands” any worldly implications of either the input or the output but simply because it’s following the dictates of its programming.

A very rough example of pseudocode to illustrate this arbitrary relationship:

let p=”night”

input R

if R=”day” then print p+”is”+R

Now, if I type “day”, then the output would be “night is day”. Great. Absolutely “correct output” according to its programming. It doesn’t necessarily “make sense” but it doesn’t have to because it’s the programming! The same goes with any other input that gets fed into the machine to produce output e.g., “nLc is auS”, “e8jey is 3uD4”, and so on.

To the machine, codes and inputs are nothing more than items and sequences to execute. There’s no meaning to this sequencing or execution activity to the machine. To the programmer, there is meaning because he or she conceptualizes and understands variables as representative placeholders of their conscious experiences. The machine doesn’t comprehend concepts such as “variables”, “placeholders”, “items”, “sequences”, “execution”, etc. It just doesn’t comprehend, period. Thus, a machine never truly “knows” what it’s doing and can only take on the operational appearance of comprehension.

3) There's zero understanding. See above. To even understand something, this "something" must be a referent. Think of it this way- What is a conscious thought without even a subject? Now, look at the above two demonstrations on how a machine works. An algorithm is referentially empty.

You, as a programmer, is responsible for a machine's operation along with the hardware designer that designed the hardware.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Agreed.

 

We have a real expert on this subject as a member.

I will lask @swansont put you right on your grasp of Physics.

Sure. this is the reference I used in my article (which no one saw, because nobody reads my argument before engaging with it:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266515947_Relativistic_effects_on_satellite_navigation

4 hours ago, Genady said:

Impractical, maybe. But impossible in principle it's certainly not.

You're not arguing, you're asserting. "X is true because I said so." - Many people in this forum

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

GPS most definitely depends on relativity; the clocks have to be adjusted for kinematic and gravitational time dilation to run at the same rate as the clocks on the ground.

That's GPS. I was talking about satellite navigation.

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by AIkonoklazt
Definition of the term "artifact"

[Genady]

23 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

4 hours ago, Genady said:

Impractical, maybe. But impossible in principle it's certainly not.

You're not arguing, you're asserting. "X is true because I said so." - Many people in this forum

If it is impossible in principle, then there should be a principle that forbids it. In all your arguments I did not see identification of such principle. If such principle does not exist, then the thing is in principle possible.

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Genady said:

If it is impossible in principle, then there should be a principle that forbids it. In all your arguments I did not see identification of such principle. If such principle does not exist, then the thing is in principle possible.

You don't want to read? Okay, sure.

1. Principle of non-contradiction (philosophy of logic)

What is "programming without programming"? An "instruction without an instruction"? A "artifact that's not an artifact?" Upon deeper examination (read the article) the concept of "artificial consciousness" is self-contradictory.

2. Principle of underdetermination of scientific theory (philosophy of science)

The long of it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/
Since (of course) you're not going to read that, you may have heard of various related sayings surrounding the concept:

• “Correlation does not imply causation” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation  ,

• “All models are wrong, some are useful” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong ,

• and last but not least, “The map is not the territory” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

 

Once again people... Please... READ THE ARGUMENT. I don't want to constantly rehash, only to be accused of re-assertion. Good grief. Two editors from two publications and four different professors read every last word- Why can't you?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You don't want to read? Okay, sure.

1. Principle of non-contradiction (philosophy of logic)

What is "programming without programming"? An "instruction without an instruction"? A "artifact that's not an artifact?" Upon deeper examination (read the article) the concept of "artificial consciousness" is self-contradictory.

2. Principle of underdetermination of scientific theory (philosophy of science)

The long of it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/
Since (of course) you're not going to read that, you may have heard of various related sayings surrounding the concept:

• “Correlation does not imply causation” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation  ,

• “All models are wrong, some are useful” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong ,

• and last but not least, “The map is not the territory” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

 

Once again people... Please... READ THE ARGUMENT. I don't want to constantly rehash, only to be accused of re-assertion. Good grief. Two editors from two publications and four different professors read every last word- Why can't you?

I've seen these in your other post. You have called them there, "laws" because you were asked about "laws". Now you call them "principles" because you are asked about "principles." In any case, they are neither scientific laws, nor scientific principles you are asked about, but generic statements in logic and philosophy. They only help avoid errors in thinking, but they do not forbid any natural phenomena.

[AIkonoklazt]

(System was sticking multiple replies together while I was typing this, but end up putting one reply by itself anyway.)

Oh, the people who downvoted the post above that was answering 4 people at the same time? Uh, you had better be the same people I'm answering to right now. Being Mr. Horse from Ren & Stimpy won't help you understand anything. Are you sure you aren't just encouraging me? ...I have 27000 fake internet points on Reddit so do you think I care about those?

42 minutes ago, Genady said:

I've seen these in your other post. You have called them there, "laws" because you were asked about "laws". Now you call them "principles" because you are asked about "principles." In any case, they are neither scientific laws, nor scientific principles you are asked about, but generic statements in logic and philosophy. They only help avoid errors in thinking, but they do not forbid any natural phenomena.

Look up a page on law of contradiction. What does it say? It says it's interchangeable with several other terms, including principles.

Natural phenomena, like artificial consciousness? Please clarify what you meant.

p.s. Correlation does not imply causation applies to physics.

Edited September 14, 2023 by AIkonoklazt
Mr. Horse

[Genady]

54 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Natural phenomena, like artificial consciousness? Please clarify what you meant.

Artificial consciousness would obey the laws of nature. This makes it a natural phenomenon.

[TheVat]

I cannot be conscious.  In act of human agency, my parents got together and started a bioware program which oversaw the metabolizing of air, hydrocarbons and trace minerals to feed the growth of a self-assembling neural network.  The neural net has a sophisticated system of heuristic and self-programming algorithms running in a massively parallel cortical stack architecture with both digital and analog aspects of neural signaling.  This assembly is guided by a blind and nonsentient evolutionary process of several billion years duration, and there is clearly no principle which would introduce consciousness or agency into the development process.  

Further evidence of my lack of consciousness is my constant repetition of primitive survival programs, reproductive programs (even when completely useless towards procreation), and notable lack of novel strategies for obtaining dinner or maintaining wakefulness when input stimuli drop below a critical threshold.

I do not possess intrinsic impetus.  All my behaviors are programmed by a blind process.  My consciousness would be impossible, as my design precludes it!  

 

[AIkonoklazt]

56 minutes ago, Genady said:

Artificial consciousness would obey the laws of nature. This makes it a natural phenomenon.

Then why is it even called artificial consciousness instead of natural consciousness?

Please give this a bit more thought.

54 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I cannot be conscious.  In act of human agency, my parents got together and started a bioware program which oversaw the metabolizing of air, hydrocarbons and trace minerals to feed the growth of a self-assembling neural network.  The neural net has a sophisticated system of heuristic and self-programming algorithms running in a massively parallel cortical stack architecture with both digital and analog aspects of neural signaling.  This assembly is guided by a blind and nonsentient evolutionary process of several billion years duration, and there is clearly no principle which would introduce consciousness or agency into the development process.  

Further evidence of my lack of consciousness is my constant repetition of primitive survival programs, reproductive programs (even when completely useless towards procreation), and notable lack of novel strategies for obtaining dinner or maintaining wakefulness when input stimuli drop below a critical threshold.

I do not possess intrinsic impetus.  All my behaviors are programmed by a blind process.  My consciousness would be impossible, as my design precludes it!  

 

What "design"? From whom, God? That's what you're saying?

[Ghideon]

21 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

There is more than one, but I'll start with the simplest one first.

You can't have programming without programming. A "machine that does things on its own and thinks on its own" is a contradiction in terms, and thus a "conscious machine" is a contradiction in term. What's an "instruction without an instruction"? There was an an entire section about it ("Volition Rooms — Machines can only appear to possess intrinsic impetus")

That's The law of non-contradiction.

 

Thanks for your reply. Trying to understand some more from the simple one above; is the following a correct way to express how Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible according to your arguments?

"From the definitions of "Artificial" and "Consciousness" it follows that Artificial Consciousness is impossible".

An analogy from mathematics would be:
From the definitions of "Negative" and "Natural number" it follows that negative natural number is impossible.

 

[AIkonoklazt]

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks for your reply. Trying to understand some more from the simple one above; is the following a correct way to express how Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible according to your arguments?

"From the definitions of "Artificial" and "Consciousness" it follows that Artificial Consciousness is impossible".

An analogy from mathematics would be:
From the definitions of "Negative" and "Natural number" it follows that negative natural number is impossible.

 

Explain how that's a valid analogy.

p.s I'd implore people of this forum to not make fart jokes of this topic. "Artificial" contains implications such as it being an artifact, which in turn contains other implications connected to insertion of teleology.

Edited September 14, 2023 by AIkonoklazt
cut out the dumb jokes please

[Ghideon]

13 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Explain how that's a valid analogy.

p.s I'd implore people of this forum to not make fart jokes of this topic. "Artificial" contains implications such as it being an artifact, which in turn contains other implications connected to insertion of teleology.

Please explain the connection between the analogy I used and fart jokes. 

[mistermack]

Artificial consciousness is possible, and is here already. My car definitely has a mind of it's own. 

[AIkonoklazt]

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Artificial consciousness is possible, and is here already. My car definitely has a mind of it's own. 

So that was a part of its design?

Ironically you're raising a point of note.

26 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Please explain the connection between the analogy I used and fart jokes. 

You must have been kidding.

If not, explain the analogy.

[Genady]

47 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Then why is it even called artificial consciousness instead of natural consciousness?

Please give this a bit more thought.

It is called artificial because it is intentionally designed and built by humans.

Similarly, an automobile is an artificial thing, and it runs on completely natural physical and chemical phenomena.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

 

Sure. this is the reference I used in my article (which no one saw, because nobody reads my argument before engaging with it:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266515947_Relativistic_effects_on_satellite_navigation

“Overviews of treatment of relativistic effects on the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou satellite systems are given”

 

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

That's GPS. I was talking about satellite navigation.

GPS is a satellite navigation system. Did you not read the article you linked to? The one about relativistic effects in satellite navigation systems?

[AIkonoklazt]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

It is called artificial because it is intentionally designed and built by humans.

Similarly, an automobile is an artificial thing, and it runs on completely natural physical and chemical phenomena.

Then it's not a "natural phenomena." You said something about "forbid any natural phenomena" and artificial consciousness isn't one. You're conflating what is naturally occurring and what is subject to physical forces. Are you being serious with me or not?

 

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Overviews of treatment of relativistic effects on the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou satellite systems are given”

 

GPS is a satellite navigation system. Did you not read the article you linked to? The one about relativistic effects in satellite navigation systems?

Satellite navigation, not satellite navigation system. Do you know the difference between the two?

My analogy is regarding deriving knowledge from practical effects.

This is in the actual text of the paper (one glance isn't going to help you or anyone here, as evidenced by this entire "discussion"):

 

Quote

There are more relativistic effects, but most of them

are too small to be significant in satellite navigation [39].

Goodness sakes...

Edited September 14, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Then it's not a "natural phenomena."

"natural" is a fuzzy word. A lot of the time, people use it to indicate "non human", even though we are of nature too. 

Is a termite mound a "natural phenomenon" or artificial? It just depends how you view the word "natural". 

Others might say, if it's not supernatural, it's natural. 

[Genady]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Then it's not a "natural phenomena." You said something about "forbid any natural phenomena" and artificial consciousness isn't one. You're conflating what is naturally occurring and what is subject to physical forces. Are you being serious with me or not?

 

I did not refer to occurring naturally, but to functioning naturally, i.e., according to the laws of nature. When I said "natural phenomenon" I referred to the latter. 

So, the question is still open:

Is there a law of nature that forbids artificially designed and built device to have a naturally functioning consciousness? 

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, mistermack said:

"natural" is a fuzzy word. A lot of the time, people use it to indicate "non human", even though we are of nature too. 

Is a termite mound a "natural phenomenon" or artificial? It just depends how you view the word "natural". 

Others might say, if it's not supernatural, it's natural. 

Stop your conflation, because artificial consciousness is the topic. If you insist upon the conflation then there's no such thing as "artificial consciousness" in the first place since everything would just be "natural consciousness."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I did not refer to occurring naturally, but to functioning naturally, i.e., according to the laws of nature. When I said "natural phenomenon" I referred to the latter. 

So, the question is still open:

Is there a law of nature that forbids artificially designed and built device to have a naturally functioning consciousness? 

Excuse me, but do you know what you're even asking at this point? Do you realize that the making of any man-made object doesn't start with a "law of nature"? If so, then the design process itself is also that of "natural law," and thus everything is operating on "natural design," a equivalent of an Intelligent Design argument?

You need to tread carefully at this point.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Stop your conflation, because artificial consciousness is the topic. If you insist upon the conflation then there's no such thing as "artificial consciousness" in the first place since everything would just be "natural consciousness."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial

There is no conflation. I didn't use the terms "artificial consciousness" or "natural consciousness" anymore. You can call it whatever you like. My questions is,

 

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

Is there a law of nature that forbids artificially designed and built device to have a naturally functioning consciousness? 

In a longer form,

Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and built device to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

[mistermack]

There's no real confusion about the "artificial" bit. You can easily demonstrate that intelligence of some sort was involved in producing "artificial consciousness" and therefor the artificial bit can be taken as established. 

Just as a termite mound or bee's nest, or crow's nest is artificial, because some level of artifice, no matter how small, was involved in making it. 

So the real point of interest is, can consciousness exist, without 4.7 billion years of non-intentional evolution? 

I would say that of course it can, it just won't be identical. Just as our consciousness is different to that of a fish.