Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible

[AIkonoklazt]

3 hours ago, GrahamF said:

I'd first want to clarify what exactly consciousness is, and how it functions. For starters, are we simply assuming that every single human has consciousness? Studies have found that a percentage of everyday people have no internal dialogue, and there are people with mental disorders such as autism or down syndrome or psychopathy that have severely restricted the functionality of their minds. Is it possible to consider that some people with even more severe disorders or illnesses may not qualify as having consciousness? Are we conflating the concept of consciousness with the concept of a soul, and rejecting the notion that our minds are not as mystical as we wish?

 

We know that various parts of the brain are responsible for different tasks, and most of those can be broken down to functions an AI can achieve. Free will can be broken down to systems that determine priority between various concurrently running objectives, and systems that determine the priority of immediate and long-term solutions to those objectives.

 

We could eventually rely on empirical observations. There are projects attempting to create a digital simulation of a human brain and all its neural connections. They're currently limited to simulating only a small number of neurons, but as technology progresses, they can build more powerful supercomputers capable of simulating even more. If they one day get to the point where they can fully emulate a human nervous system in its entirety and it can talk and think and act like a conscious human, that would be a solid piece of evidence then.

(gonna try a quick reply before I go to bed)

Paragraph-by-paragraph:

1. Does the person have an ability to think about a thing, anything at all? Even if only about a sensation. How about just feeling anything?
2. That doesn't mean you get a complete functional model. There's no such thing as a "complete model" of anything. See terms such as "correlation does not imply causation," "all models are wrong, some are useful," and "the map is not the territory." All of them relate to the underdetermination of scientific theory.
3. Again, no complete modeling of anything. See #2

Edited September 15, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[studiot]

 

Well I had a useful sleep and in doing so came up with this thought about artificial consciousness.

 

A person (Bob) has an accident and looses a leg.

After hospital treatment for the trauma the doctors provide a replacement.

No one say expects this to be a good as the original, though we are getting better and some replacement parts are actually better (What's that runner's name ?)

We say Bob has an artificial leg.

 

Wind on a few years and Bob has trouble with his heart.

The doctors provide him with an artificial valve.

In order to do this they render him unconscious,  stop his heart, replace the valve and then restart his heart.

 

After this they bring him back to consciousness.

 

So as with the leg and the valve why do you not think this new consciousness is not artifical ?

 

 

[geordief]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Well I had a useful sleep and in doing so came up with this thought about artificial consciousness.

 

A person (Bob) has an accident and looses a leg.

After hospital treatment for the trauma the doctors provide a replacement.

No one say expects this to be a good as the original, though we are getting better and some replacement parts are actually better (What's that runner's name ?)

We say Bob has an artificial leg.

 

Wind on a few years and Bob has trouble with his heart.

The doctors provide him with an artificial valve.

In order to do this they render him unconscious,  stop his heart, replace the valve and then restart his heart.

 

After this they bring him back to consciousness.

 

So as with the leg and the valve why do you not think this new consciousness is not artifical ?

 

 

Because consciousness is a process and not a thing?

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, geordief said:

Because consciousness is a process and not a thing?

Very good question +1

 

I put this up for proper discussion and am pleasurably suprised by the result.

[mistermack]

This whole thread is of an interesting subject, but kicked off with a hugely bad OP. And then pushed by some weird and not wonderful argument.

Surely, if you have such a claim as what's in the title, you start with rock solid definitions of artificial, and consciousness ?

And then, you have to clearly explain why an intelligent being can never, ever, under any circumstance, bring about any form of consciousness, no matter how primitive. 

Well, humans have replicated what evolution has achieved in so many areas, why can't we replicate consciousness? We can replicate flight, deep sea diving, legs, kidneys, we can replicate speech at the speed of light, to people on the Moon, we can even replicate the Sun, here on Earth, all not identically but to varying degrees. So why should it be impossible to replicate consciousness, to some degree? 

In the OP the poster says :   

Consciousness[2]:

“When I am in a conscious mental state, there is something it is like for me to be in that state from the subjective or first-person point of view.” 

That's hardly a definition, but I didn't see anything else resembling a definition. Just a following list of things the OP "asserts" consciousness must include. For someone who is so ready to accuse posters of "argument by assertion", the OP is full to the brim of unsupported assertions.

The above assertion in blue seems to exclude lower forms of consciousness, and really seems to talk about self-consciousness, or self-awareness, which is a totally different thing. To me that's consciousness on a much more advanced level.

Babies develop through lots of stages of awareness, and self awareness, but they are surely conscious right from the start. 

Earthworms have a primitive level of consciousness, surely? They are conscious of a torch shone on them, of moist or dry environments, of the presence next to them of a possible mate. So there are different levels, all the way down to zero. I can't see any reason why you can't one day construct a machine that is more conscious than a nematode worm. And if you can do that, then you can improve it, over and over to higher levels.

The OP is so full of unclear vague assertions, you can't really have a meaningful debate that centres around it.

Such as : 

Requirements of consciousness
A conscious entity, i.e., a mind, must possess:
1. Intentionality[3]:
“Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties, and states of affairs.”

I'm not a genius, but I'm not thick either. But I have no idea what the poster is trying to say there. But I do recognise an assertion when I see one, even if I've got no idea what it is. 🙃

I would say, try to make arguments from fundamentals that most people would understand and agree with. Otherwise, you're just spouting verbal confetti. 

 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Because consciousness is a process and not a thing?

And, being a process, is emergent rather than intrinsic.  

5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

That doesn't mean you get a complete functional model. There's no such thing as a "complete model" of anything

If so, then there is no complete model of a conscious process that would decide against it happening in a sophisticated artificial neural network.  When you assert the incomplete nature of models, you reject your own OP thesis.

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

For someone who is so ready to accuse posters of "argument by assertion", the OP is full to the brim of unsupported assertions.

It seems that way to me  too.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

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

So, it's a symantic argument, it's impossible for this to mean that; much like that river you can't cross twice, even when you do.

 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

3 hours ago, geordief said:

Because consciousness is a process and not a thing?

And, being a process, is emergent rather than intrinsic. 

I think it is a process of an intrinsic faculty at work. There is a brain structure whose function is perceived by us as consciousness. I also think that this faculty evolved as a means of learning.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Genady

[Ghideon]

19 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You must have been kidding.

No, I have a serious interest in the topic and the root cause in science that makes artificial consciousness impossible. I'm looking for further information about the science, the basic foundations.

Your answer implies that "Artificial Consciousness" is a definitional contradiction and I tried an analogy to illustrate (lets drop the analogy if you find it  irrelevant). If possible I want to distinguish between philosophical interpretation and a direct scientific refutation of the possibility of artificial consciousness.

Note that I am not arguing against or in favour of your claims, I am engaging in the discussion to get knowledge and insights.

[Genady]

13 hours ago, Genady said:

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

unintended consequence is that humans cannot possess agency, intentionality, or consciousness

They are all illusions.

Found a quote I had in mind when I said this:

Quote

Proponents of this position typically argue that even though it sometimes seems as if our thoughts are conscious, this is just an illusion that stems from the tendency to mistakenly treat the verbal and nonverbal images that often accompany certain thoughts as being equivalent to the conceptual contents of those thoughts.

Kemmerer, David. Concepts in the Brain: The View From Cross-linguistic Diversity (p. 243). Oxford University Press. 

 

[AIkonoklazt]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

If so, then there is no complete model of a conscious process that would decide against it happening in a sophisticated artificial neural network.  When you assert the incomplete nature of models, you reject your own OP thesis.

 

What the heck are you talking about? Parse the above in plain English. Are you still roleplaying as an AI like you did earlier, or what? At least that's what I'm getting from the above.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, it's a symantic argument, it's impossible for this to mean that; much like that river you can't cross twice, even when you do.

 

Explain to me what you just said. I don't understand.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

No, I have a serious interest in the topic and the root cause in science that makes artificial consciousness impossible. I'm looking for further information about the science, the basic foundations.

Your answer implies that "Artificial Consciousness" is a definitional contradiction and I tried an analogy to illustrate (lets drop the analogy if you find it  irrelevant). If possible I want to distinguish between philosophical interpretation and a direct scientific refutation of the possibility of artificial consciousness.

Note that I am not arguing against or in favour of your claims, I am engaging in the discussion to get knowledge and insights.

There's no such thing as a machine that "does things on its own." Start with that.

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Proponents of this position typically argue that even though it sometimes seems as if our thoughts are conscious, this is just an illusion that stems from the tendency to mistakenly treat the verbal and nonverbal images that often accompany certain thoughts as being equivalent to the conceptual contents of those thoughts.

Kemmerer, David. Concepts in the Brain: The View From Cross-linguistic Diversity (p. 243). Oxford University Press. 

 

That's interesting. However, how would Kemmerer handle people with a condition such as aphantasia?

9 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Well I had a useful sleep and in doing so came up with this thought about artificial consciousness.

 

A person (Bob) has an accident and looses a leg.

After hospital treatment for the trauma the doctors provide a replacement.

No one say expects this to be a good as the original, though we are getting better and some replacement parts are actually better (What's that runner's name ?)

We say Bob has an artificial leg.

 

Wind on a few years and Bob has trouble with his heart.

The doctors provide him with an artificial valve.

In order to do this they render him unconscious,  stop his heart, replace the valve and then restart his heart.

 

After this they bring him back to consciousness.

 

So as with the leg and the valve why do you not think this new consciousness is not artifical ?

 

 

You didn't describe the purported effects of this operation on his sensations. You can literally go anywhere, and I don't know where you're going. There are man-made sensations coming from what and where? Please describe the situation in more depth. How are the sensations artificial?

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Very good question +1

 

I put this up for proper discussion and am pleasurably suprised by the result.

Why isn't it a state?

 

7 hours ago, geordief said:

Because consciousness is a process and not a thing?

Why isn't it a state?

Edited September 15, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[StringJunky]

41 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

What the heck are you talking about? Parse the above in plain English. Are you still roleplaying as an AI like you did earlier, or what? At least that's what I'm getting from the above.

Explain to me what you just said. I don't understand.

There's no such thing as a machine that "does things on its own." Start with that.

That's interesting. However, how would Kemmerer handle people with a condition such as aphantasia?

You didn't describe the purported effects of this operation on his sensations. You can literally go anywhere, and I don't know where you're going. There are man-made sensations coming from what and where? Please describe the situation in more depth. How are the sensations artificial?

Why isn't it a state?

 

Why isn't it a state?

A state is a point in time of a process.

Quote

What is the difference between state and process in thermodynamics?

If the state of a system changes, then it is undergoing a process. The succession of states through which the system passes defines the path of the process. If, at the end of the process, the properties have returned to their original values, the system has undergone a cyclic process or a cycle.

https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node11.html#:~:text=If the state of a,cyclic process or a cycle.

A state is a sub-ordinate to a process in level of complexity. We don't get to redefine what these things mean.

Edited September 15, 2023 by StringJunky

[AIkonoklazt]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

 

 

Consciousness[2]:

“When I am in a conscious mental state, there is something it is like for me to be in that state from the subjective or first-person point of view.” 

That's hardly a definition, but I didn't see anything else resembling a definition. Just a following list of things the OP "asserts" consciousness must include. For someone who is so ready to accuse posters of "argument by assertion", the OP is full to the brim of unsupported assertions.

 

 

A dictionary entry for consciousness states "The state or condition of being conscious."

First of all, that's not exactly helpful so I used something from an encyclopedia of philosophy.

Second, those two entries are used to distinguish one term from another.

Performative intelligence is in a different category than attributive consciousness.

Got that?

"Full to the brim?" just from stating the necessary and sufficient condition? Hardly. How about you at least look at the "references" section? It's "full to the brim" with supported references, scientific study included.

Quote

The above assertion in blue seems to exclude lower forms of consciousness, and really seems to talk about self-consciousness, or self-awareness, which is a totally different thing. To me that's consciousness on a much more advanced level.

Seems to but not necessarily. The point is to distinguish phenomenal consciousness from whatever other things people call "consciousness." Why can't a slug have a "first slug view" of things?

Quote

But I have no idea what the poster is trying to say there. But I do recognise an assertion when I see one, even if I've got no idea what it is.

How about this. Does your thought refer to anything at all? If your thoughts don't refer to anything at all then how could you understand any word on your screen right now? If you could, then your mind has "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties, and states of affairs."

Now that you're done with the tirade and accusations, We can address the points like a regular discussion.

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

A state is a point in time of a process.

A state is a sub-ordinate to a process in level of complexity. We don't get to redefine what these things mean.

...right. I know what the differences between the two are, but you haven't given me the answer of why isn't it a state. You basically just going "it's not a state, it's a process!"

Okay, why?

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

A dictionary entry for consciousness states "The state or condition of being conscious."

First of all, that's not exactly helpful so I used something from an encyclopedia of philosophy.

Second, those two entries are used to distinguish one term from another.

Performative intelligence is in a different category than attributive consciousness.

Got that?

"Full to the brim?" just from stating the necessary and sufficient condition? Hardly. How about you at least look at the "references" section? It's "full to the brim" with supported references, scientific study included.

Seems to but not necessarily. The point is to distinguish phenomenal consciousness from whatever other things people call "consciousness." Why can't a slug have a "first slug view" of things?

How about this. Does your thought refer to anything at all? If your thoughts don't refer to anything at all then how could you understand any word on your screen right now? If you could, then your mind has "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties, and states of affairs."

Now that you're done with the tirade and accusations, We can address the points like a regular discussion.

...right. I know what the differences between the two are, but you haven't given me the answer of why isn't it a state. You basically just going "it's not a state, it's a process!"

Okay, why?

A state records a point in time or fragment of a process.

Quote

1.2.5 The Concept of a ``Process''
If the state of a system changes, then it is undergoing a process. The succession of states through which the system passes defines the path of the process. If, at the end of the process, the properties have returned to their original values, the system has undergone a cyclic process or a cycle. Note that even if a system has returned to its original state and completed a cycle, the state of the surroundings may have changed.

https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node11.html#:~:text=If the state of a,cyclic process or a cycle.

 

[mistermack]

7 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Performative intelligence is in a different category than attributive consciousness.

Got that?

No. 

I think you must have swallowed that dictionary. Why can't you use plain English? 

Can you give a short, concise, plain English definition of consciousness, as you understand it? Because I if you can't do that, how can any meaningful debate take place?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, mistermack said:

No. 

I think you must have swallowed that dictionary. Why can't you use plain English? 

Can you give a short, concise, plain English definition of consciousness, as you understand it? Because I if you can't do that, how can any meaningful debate take place?

Intelligence has to do with the ability to perform tasks. Thus the term AI. the term "AI" isn't referring to things with intelligence, it's about things doing intelligent-seeming things.

Versus consciousness, which is an attribute. It's not an ability. You don't "get better at consciousness". "artificial consciousness" as a term is on a whole other level than "artificial intelligence."

That's what I was emphasizing when trying to draw a clear line.

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

A state records a point in time or fragment of a process.

 

Okay, but how do you put gaseous state, liquid state, solid state, and plasma state in terms of that?

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Intelligence has to do with the ability to perform tasks. Thus the term AI. the term "AI" isn't referring to things with intelligence, it's about things doing intelligent-seeming things.

Versus consciousness, which is an attribute. It's not an ability. You don't "get better at consciousness". "artificial consciousness" as a term is on a whole other level than "artificial intelligence."

That's what I was emphasizing when trying to draw a clear line.

Okay, but how do you put gaseous state, liquid state, solid state, and plasma state in terms of that?

They are in states of different density and electrostatic attraction..

Edited September 15, 2023 by StringJunky

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

They are in states of different density and electrostatic attraction..

Now apply that to consciousness, and also the state of being alive.

[Ghideon]

56 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

There's no such thing as a machine that "does things on its own." Start with that.

Thanks for your input. Can you provide a scientific basis or reference for the idea that artificial consciousness is impossible? 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks for your input. Can you provide a scientific basis or reference for the idea that artificial consciousness is impossible? 

Scientific basis? What about engineering basis?

(okay. You're not going to look at the article, but can you look at the reference section of the article? There are science and computer science references in there)

[mistermack]

15 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Intelligence has to do with the ability to perform tasks. Thus the term AI. the term "AI" isn't referring to things with intelligence, it's about things doing intelligent-seeming things.

Versus consciousness, which is an attribute. It's not an ability. You don't "get better at consciousness". "artificial consciousness" as a term is on a whole other level than "artificial intelligence."

That's what I was emphasizing when trying to draw a clear line.

I don't detect a definition in there. This is your thread. It's not unreasonable to ask you for a definition of consciousness, that we can all understand and agree on. 

But having said that, I totally disagree with what you just wrote. You can be conscious, semi-conscious, drifting in and out of consciousness, and unconscious. And in the animal kingdom, you have a spread of organisms with a complete range, from human consciousness all the way down to nematode worms, and beyond that down to bacteria etc. 

We know that our own consciousness arose at those basic levels and evolved up to our current state, starting with chemical signals, advancing a bit with nerves and their electricals, bit by bit all the way to us. 

Why can't we imitate those systems? What's the intrinsic problem that says you can't even start to make a machine that's as conscious as an earthworm? Because if you can do that, then you can build on that to a machine that can rival our own consciousness and beyond. 

[Ghideon]

16 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Scientific basis? What about engineering basis?

(okay. You're not going to look at the article, but can you look at the reference section of the article? There are science and computer science references in there)

I have looked at the article and other sources and got curious about science behind why it artificial consciousness is impossible. Your answer

On 9/14/2023 at 1:13 AM, AIkonoklazt said:

That's The law of non-contradiction.

I'm trying to understand if that is a matter of definitions and logic. And, if so is the case, ruling out that there is any physical law making artificial consciousness impossible. 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Proponents of this position typically argue that even though it sometimes seems as if our thoughts are conscious, this is just an illusion that stems from the tendency to mistakenly treat the verbal and nonverbal images that often accompany certain thoughts as being equivalent to the conceptual contents of those thoughts.

Kemmerer, David. Concepts in the Brain: The View From Cross-linguistic Diversity (p. 243). Oxford University Press. 

 

Expand  

That's interesting. However, how would Kemmerer handle people with a condition such as aphantasia?

Perhaps these people don't have this illusion.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Why isn't it a state?

This is the first glimmer of proper discussion I have discerned in this thread and addresses a very interesting point.

We can even fruitfully introduce models into this dicussion.

 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

A state records a point in time or fragment of a process.

I don't think so.

Normally  the transition from one state to another would involve a process.

But states are only defined for a defined object or system.

Processes can involve objects or phenomena beyond the system.

 

I can't see the standard thermodynamic definition of a thermodynamic state being of much use as a model for the state of consciousness.

The state of equilibrium offers far more promise.

That is because the specific state of dynamic equilibrium offers a model for the fact that consciousness has some similar characteristics.

In particular both dynamic equilibrium and consciousness depends upon external variables as well as system variables and also the interplay between them.

So if you wish to call consciousness a state, your state model must include both these internal and those external parameters.

[mistermack]

A state can involve constant change, or constant motion. 

The Earth is in a state of motion around the Sun. My computer processor is in an active state right now, dealing with inputs and producing outputs. If I switch it off, it's in a dormant state. To some extent, it mirrors the human brain, asleep and awake. 

I like this discussion, particularly by Dawkins, as they chew over the consciousness phenomenon. I don't necessarily agree with everything, but it's refreshing how Dawkins communicates, so clear and precise, without the need for bullshit and jargon. The PHYSICS of CONSCIOUSNESS - Richard Dawkins & Brian Greene - YouTube