Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible

[AIkonoklazt]

On 10/31/2023 at 7:16 AM, zapatos said:

You should try asking them in a pleasant way. This is a discussion forum after all.

I did. Got nothing but arguments from assertions until I straight up called that out.

/end of reply

(this separate paragraph will get merged into the above reply)

From Webster:

artificial

adjective

ar·ti·fi·cial ˌär-tə-ˈfi-shᵊl 

 

 

Synonyms of artificial

 

 

1

: humanly contrived (see contrive sense 1b) often on a natural model : man-made

an artificial limb

 

The term "involved" doesn't refer to dependence. It points to which entity the term "artificial consciousness" refers to.

 

As I've pointed out in the article, cybernetics and cloning (and now using living entities to construct machines) is an act of manipulation upon a conscious entity, and not a creation of consciousness.

 

Even if you take an animal and twist it into a machine, you're not creating any consciousness- You would be manipulating a conscious entity. The consciousness would already be existent and therefore not humanly contrived (per definition above)

Edited November 1, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I did. Got nothing but arguments from assertions until I straight up called that out.

/end of reply

(this separate paragraph will get merged into the above reply)

From Webster:

artificial

adjective

ar·ti·fi·cial ˌär-tə-ˈfi-shᵊl 

 

 

Synonyms of artificial

 

 

1

: humanly contrived (see contrive sense 1b) often on a natural model : man-made

an artificial limb

 

The term "involved" doesn't refer to dependence. It points to which entity the term "artificial consciousness" refers to.

 

As I've pointed out in the article, cybernetics and cloning (and now using living entities to construct machines) is an act of manipulation upon a conscious entity, and not a creation of consciousness.

 

Even if you take an animal and twist it into a machine, you're not creating any consciousness- You would be manipulating a conscious entity. The consciousness would already be existent and therefore not humanly contrived (per definition above)

So what's the point of the topic?

That's like saying "Human flight is impossible, if we discount plane's"; what's there to discuss?

[AIkonoklazt]

I don't think the above poster even knows exactly what this analogous "plane" he's talking about.

He's trying to equate this known entity such as an airplane with an unknown entity that as I've pointed out, could not be an artifact and thus not a machine. This "missing item" is impossible to construct.

I don't want to go on explaining what bad analogies are to school kids.

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I don't think the above poster even knows exactly what this analogous "plane" he's talking about.

He's trying to equate this known entity such as an airplane with an unknown entity that as I've pointed out, could not be an artifact and thus not a machine. This "missing item" is impossible to construct.

I don't want to go on explaining what bad analogies are to school kids.

Nevertheless my point stands and the analogy is consistent with this thread; all one can say with any confidence is, as things stand artificial consciousness is "probably" impossible today... 

Perhaps you should ask a school kid what the difference between a discussion and gainsay, is? 🙄

Unless this missing item is a soul (the magic one), then it already has been constructed and we're just missing the blueprints. 

[AIkonoklazt]

"Soul"?

Try a design that's not a design. "Construct" that.

How many times do I have to make the same point?

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

"Soul"?

What you haven't done is explain "the missing piece" which sounds suspiciously like God magic to me... 

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Try a design that's not a design. "Construct" that.

Every living thing has a design, mammals for instance, from whale's to bat's and human's to rat's, they all have the same basic design, many robot's too...

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

How many times do I have to make the same point?

The difference between a discussion and gainsay is, the number is finite, if you can explain it properly. 

[AIkonoklazt]

Good grief.

The "missing piece" is the design without a design. There's no such thing- It's a contradiction as I've already pointed out numerous times.

The process of evolution isn't that of design. There is no design in nature unless someone is fielding some sort of Intelligent Design argument (ironic given the reply I got above)

I'm going to take TheVat's advice and ignore you and your replies. Not going to spend any more time with some school child whose concept of design is expressed with his ridiculous post about his parents having sex.

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Good grief.

The "missing piece" is the design without a design. There's no such thing- It's a contradiction as I've already pointed out numerous times.

The process of evolution isn't that of design. There is no design in nature unless someone is fielding some sort of Intelligent Design argument (ironic given the reply I got above)

I'm going to take TheVat's advice and ignore you and your replies. Not going to spend any more time with some school child whose concept of design is expressed with his ridiculous post about his parents having sex. T

 

The behaviour of matter in biological systems has a large element of determinism. If a potassium ion collides with a water molecule, the end product is deterministic.. The incidence of collisions may be random, but after that the outcome is deterministic. The concept of 'design' is applicable because the outcomes of these are pre-determined by their predictable behaviour and we can see where it's going. In a purely stochastic process we can only guess. This is where the idea of evolution being a blind watchmaker came from. The problem is dichotomizing the subject to force a choice.

Edited November 6, 2023 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

Quote

Design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, though it is sometimes used to refer to the nature of something. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

[AIkonoklazt]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The behaviour of matter in biological systems has a large element of determinism. If a potassium ion collides with a water molecule, the end product is deterministic.. The incidence of collisions may be random, but after that the outcome is deterministic. The concept of 'design' is applicable because the outcomes of these are pre-determined by their predictable behaviour and we can see where it's going. In a purely stochastic process we can only guess. This is where the idea of evolution being a blind watchmaker came from. The problem is dichotomizing the subject to force a choice.

You're inventing a new meaning of a term.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

design

2 of 2

noun

1

a

: a particular purpose or intention held in view by an individual or group

He has ambitious designs for his son.

 

b

: deliberate purposive planning

more by accident than design

 

 

2

: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down

was never part of my design

 

 

3

a

: a deliberate undercover project or scheme : plot

a declaration of a design upon his life—

John Locke

 

b

designs plural : aggressive or evil intent

—used with on or against

he has designs on the money

 

4

: a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be executed

the design for the new stadium

 

 

5

a

: an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : pattern, motif

the general design of the epic

 

b

: a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (such as a scientific experiment)

also : the process of preparing this

 

6

: the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art

… his sense of structure, both in the general design of Paradise Lost and Samson, and in his syntax …—

T. S. Eliot

 

 

7

: a decorative pattern

a floral design

 

 

8

: the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs

studied design in college

 

-------------------

Not only that, I've already made the point regarding undeterdetermination of scientific theories. There is no such thing as a "complete model" as I've indicated so many times in this thread

There is no "design X" for anyone to "reverse engineer." Such thinking is utterly wrongheaded. Again:

• "Correlation does not imply causation"
• "All models are wrong, some are useful"
• "The map is not the territory"

etc.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You're inventing a new meaning of a term.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

design

2 of 2

noun

...

 

 

5

a

: an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : pattern, motif

the general design of the epic

 

...

 

 

[AIkonoklazt]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

you quote, I quote, everyone can quote because it's one big rehash
 

Quote

Not only that, I've already made the point regarding undeterdetermination of scientific theories. There is no such thing as a "complete model" as I've indicated so many times in this thread

There is no "design X" for anyone to "reverse engineer." Such thinking is utterly wrongheaded. Again:

• "Correlation does not imply causation"
• "All models are wrong, some are useful"
• "The map is not the territory"

p.s. If you look at the example given to sense 5a of the definition, it's still referring to the patterning of a creative element

Edited November 7, 2023 by AIkonoklazt
nope what you've quoted doesn't support what you're driving at

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

you quote, I quote, everyone can quote because it's one big rehash

"It's not about who quotes who" he said in his best python; it's about who supports their potionposition the best; it's not always about citations, it's about a reasoned arguement with a splash of logical, not the fallacious type that you're using. 🙄

It's a shame, because I'd quite like to discuss the feasibility of artificial consciousness and the potential ethical problem's, if it did emerge, just without your artificial restriction's and guesswork. 

15 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You're inventing a new meaning of a term.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

design

2 of 2

noun

1

a

: a particular purpose or intention held in view by an individual or group

He has ambitious designs for his son.

 

b

: deliberate purposive planning

more by accident than design

 

 

2

: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down

was never part of my design

 

 

3

a

: a deliberate undercover project or scheme : plot

a declaration of a design upon his life—

John Locke

 

b

designs plural : aggressive or evil intent

 

—used with on or against

he has designs on the money

 

4

: a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be executed

the design for the new stadium

 

 

5

a

: an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : pattern, motif

the general design of the epic

 

b

: a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (such as a scientific experiment)

also : the process of preparing this

 

6

: the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art

… his sense of structure, both in the general design of Paradise Lost and Samson, and in his syntax …—

T. S. Eliot

 

 

7

: a decorative pattern

a floral design

 

 

8

: the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs

studied design in college

 

-------------------

Not only that, I've already made the point regarding undeterdetermination of scientific theories. There is no such thing as a "complete model" as I've indicated so many times in this thread

There is no "design X" for anyone to "reverse engineer." Such thinking is utterly wrongheaded. Again:

• "Correlation does not imply causation"
• "All models are wrong, some are useful"
• "The map is not the territory"

etc.

Way to miss the point, again (where's that slaphead emoji 🧐), it's not about who designed what, it's about the fact that a mammal has a design that work's, four limbs a head etc... And in the context of this topic, many robotisist's use that design in many way's, towards a human level assistant/slave. 

Edited November 7, 2023 by dimreepr

[AIkonoklazt]

Really amused by Manzotti's 2018 "GOFAC" paper today. I've seen the paper before but now that I've considered the proposed solution he's fielding, I can say that he did me a big favor. Here's how.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2018.00039/full

 

The example given by the paper (apparently it's his own experimentation since he's also an author) is still measuring the result of programming: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921889004001861?via=ihub

 

That is, if something is programmed "well enough" to produce certain measurements then it would be deemed conscious. That's just another variety of behaviorism that was already debunked by Searle.

 

The paper is basically debunking functionalism while at the same time proposing yet another variety of behaviorism. It's arguably swatting away a stronger argument and replacing it with a weaker one.

 

It's another classic "consciousness room."

 

Also, it doesn't explain why those same measurements must be the result of consciousness. It is committing the same "gap" mistake it's pointing out in GOFACs.... Isn't "measurement" itself an "intermediate level," thus rendering the proposed alternative itself an intermediate level fallacy? The irony here would be extreme.

My oh my. I'm going to check with some of my collaborators. I can't believe this.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Really amused by Manzotti's 2018 "GOFAC" paper today. I've seen the paper before but now that I've considered the proposed solution he's fielding, I can say that he did me a big favor. Here's how.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2018.00039/full

From your link:

Quote

 

“we know of no fundamental law or principle operating in this universe that forbids the existence of subjective feelings in artifacts designed or evolved by humans.1”

To the best of our knowledge, this claim is valid still today.

 

How does this favour your OP?

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

That is, if something is programmed "well enough" to produce certain measurements then it would be deemed conscious. That's just another variety of behaviorism that was already debunked by Searle.

How is it possible to debunk something you don't understand?

It's the old Dr Doolittle fantasy, just because a lion can speak English doesn't mean you could understand what it says

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Also, it doesn't explain why those same measurements must be the result of consciousness. It is committing the same "gap" mistake it's pointing out in GOFACs....

My impression, too.  Will read beyond the abstracts and conclusions today if time permits.  I have some appreciation that he approaches consciousness as something that extends beyond neurons and must involve a body interacting with a world.  

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The paper is basically debunking functionalism while at the same time proposing yet another variety of behaviorism. It's arguably swatting away a stronger argument and replacing it with a weaker one.

Yup.  My thermostat behaves.  Same old same old.  For a behaviorist, there is no knowable difference between two states of mind unless there is a demonstrable difference in the behavior associated with each state.  Easy to see why such theoretic approaches are superseded.

[AIkonoklazt]

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

My impression, too.  Will read beyond the abstracts and conclusions today if time permits.  I have some appreciation that he approaches consciousness as something that extends beyond neurons and must involve a body interacting with a world.  

Yup.  My thermostat behaves.  Same old same old.  For a behaviorist, there is no knowable difference between two states of mind unless there is a demonstrable difference in the behavior associated with each state.  Easy to see why such theoretic approaches are superseded.

I got an answer from the neuroscience research professor I've been keeping in touch with. He said that, yes, the position taken by the authors of the paper can indeed be seen as behaviorism. However, he also said that the author may be trying to make a point that was made by French philosopher Henri Bergson:

Quote

In Bergson's philosophy, there is the concept of "image", and this "image" is something that resides in the outside world, only in relation to an agent.

Being that I've never even heard of, much less read Bergson, it's going to take me a while to go through and get a basic idea of it. I was also referred to this lecture:

 

[dimreepr]

On 11/23/2023 at 11:17 AM, AIkonoklazt said:

I got an answer from the neuroscience research professor I've been keeping in touch with. He said that, yes, the position taken by the authors of the paper can indeed be seen as behaviorism. However, he also said that the author may be trying to make a point that was made by French philosopher Henri Bergson:

Being that I've never even heard of, much less read Bergson, it's going to take me a while to go through and get a basic idea of it. I was also referred to this lecture:

 

All of your citations and argument's are providing evidence that what is impossible, is that we could ever know if a machine is conscious, not that it's impossible to achieve.

Maybe you should read some Asimov.

Edited November 24, 2023 by dimreepr

[AIkonoklazt]

Maybe someone should stop reading sci-fi and read textbooks instead. Start with the AI textbook quoted in my original article.

[dimreepr]

On 11/25/2023 at 7:45 PM, AIkonoklazt said:

Maybe someone should stop reading sci-fi and read textbooks instead. Start with the AI textbook quoted in my original article.

Why do make it so personal?

Assimov explored the question in some depth, but he had to make it sci-fi because they didn't exist when he was writing; he doesn't have all the answer's, but he did ask some profound question's.

It's almost like you've got a vendetta against the very idea of a sentient machine...

Like in the freewill thread, where you seemed frightened by the idea of an AI with right's; is it a sort of god complex type thing? Like in the bible where it says that we have dominion over everything that's not us...

[AIkonoklazt]

Think you missed the bit where I talked about people having their rights pitted against those of inanimate objects in a court of law

What if you end up being one of those people one day... You'd appreciate at least someone looking out for your human rights

The issue isn't as simple-minded as you make it sound; This isn't an issue of "fear" but justice.

Edited November 28, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Think you missed the bit where I talked about people having their rights pitted against those of inanimate objects in a court of law

What if you end up being one of those people one day... You'd appreciate at least someone looking out for your human rights

Nope got that, the bit that's missing is the rights conferred on them that could possibly impinge on your rights, let's not forget who makes the law...

5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The issue isn't as simple-minded as you make it sound; This isn't an issue of "fear" but justice.

In this case it very much is as simple as it sounds, because the only way for it to end up in legal conflict, is if you took an axe to it's mainframe and there's only one motive that makes sense, since they're imaginary ATM, and it's not justice... 🙄

[StringJunky]

7 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The issue isn't as simple-minded as you make it sound; This isn't an issue of "fear" but justice.

I think that sounds like a case of "Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie". Fear of the loss of the controlling position. There are some aspects of human activity where AI will make less mistakes. We can't mentally juggle as many balls in the air as they can.

Edited November 28, 2023 by StringJunky
Altered beginning

[AIkonoklazt]

14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Nope got that, the bit that's missing is the rights conferred on them that could possibly impinge on your rights, let's not forget who makes the law...

In this case it very much is as simple as it sounds, because the only way for it to end up in legal conflict, is if you took an axe to it's mainframe and there's only one motive that makes sense, since they're imaginary ATM, and it's not justice... 🙄

Physical damage isn't the only type of legal claim. Financial and even claimed "emotional damages" can end up in civil proceedings. It's absurd to process claims from an inanimate object, since a claim involves a linguistic referent.

The only claims involved should be property rights, by the human owners of the tools, and not any purported moral rights of the tools "themselves."

 

 

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think that sounds like a case of "Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie". Fear of the loss of the controlling position. There are some aspects of human activity where AI will make less mistakes. We can't mentally juggle as many balls in the air as they can.

I don't see what that has to do with conferring moral rights to AI. Tools can be used without conferring any rights to them, except non-moral rights such as right-of-operation in a transport lane e.g. robot vehicles.

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Physical damage isn't the only type of legal claim. Financial and even claimed "emotional damages" can end up in civil proceedings. It's absurd to process claims from an inanimate object, since a claim involves a linguistic referent.

The only claims involved should be property rights, by the human owners of the tools, and not any purported moral rights of the tools "themselves."

 

 

I don't see what that has to do with conferring moral rights to AI. Tools can be used without conferring any rights to them, except non-moral rights such as right-of-operation in a transport lane e.g. robot vehicles.

Could be set up where it manages a Corporation. Would then, by way of the Corporation, have certain rights.

 

What would convince you AI consciousness was possible?

Edited November 29, 2023 by Endy0816