Can AI have consciousness, if it's nothing more than electrical activity on a neural net ?
>>8076006
yes
>>8076006
maybe
mark this solved
>>8076006
Of course, assuming humans do have consciousness
By definition consciousness is the ability to collapse quantum mechanical wave functions. Let's see an AI do this.
>>8076096
PENROSE OUT!
>>8076006
Probably yes but maybe no. We still dont know enough about what causes natural consciousness to make guesses about other types but if it is just the byproduct of a biological calculator then electronic computers should also be able to develop consciousness.
by this definition the current level of AI like Siri and Cleverbot should at least have as much consciousness as the average mammal right?
Not a scientific question
>>8076651
Yes it is.
>>8076662
By the time you've got a good enough definition of consciousness, the real issues are long gone
It's philosophy
>>8076006
Not true consciousness.
To have a conscience, you have to be born from a conscience.
>>8076664
It's only philosophy if you believe consciousness is something besides a physical phenomenon and rather a spiritual one. Which makes you a retard.
>>8076679
>only the things I don't like are philosophy
>>8076683
greentexts are not counter-arguments
>>8076095
CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION
>>8076006
Everything has consciousness (can you imagine being something without consciousness?), but it is more manifest in some things. An AI with sufficient physical freedom will also undoubtedly display consciousness.
>>8076696
I was pointing out that 1) it is completely unsupported and 2) it came out of your misinformed opinion on philosophy
If you think it has to be spiritual to be philosophy, you're a bad philosopher. If you think it has to be physical to be scientific, you're a bad scientist.
If you think spiritual is the only conceivable alternative to physical you're a bad philosopher and a bad scientist
>>8076714
Philosophy is the ultimate faggotry full of fairy tales which does NOT use the scientific method remotely. Considering consciousness is a physical phenomenon it has to be dealt with physics and neurology, which directly makes it a science question.
That is the biggest if and assumption i have heard anyone make..
>>8076006
Nope consciousness comes from the soul which can only be given by God.
>>8076730
Philosophers invented the scientific method
>>8076745
And you shouldn't think down on philosophy.
Philosophy is not just "fairy tales", it's hard reasoned thought.
It's thanks to philosophers that we have formal theories of logic, mathematics, sciences, etc. A scientific solution requires a strict enough definition, but the definition is most of the problem.
>>8076754
0/10
>>8076778
Oh, I guess you're right. Anything that's true must be science (including mathematics, logic and the many other forms of thinking which don't involve the scientific method at all), and anything that's wrong is philosophy.
>>8076096
No it isn't, and consciousness has never been empirically proven to be the sole factor that collapses one.
>>8076791
Anything that uses the scienctific method is science. Which means it excludes philosophy completely. Otherwise philosophers would be familiar with delicate machinery that accurately measures their findings and methods that are rigorously tested to be credible. But no philosophy doesn't even bother with that. It's purely semantics with zero real-life application at all. It's literally the most useless practice someone can waste their lives with.
>>8076814
>>8076832
> Feminism
> Social Science
>>8076832
> metaphyiscs, epistemplogy, logic, ethics, aesthetics
Thanks for proving my point lol.
>>8076832
>feminism
>compatibilism
>eliminativism
This is why I can't ever take philosophy seriously.
>>8076858
You don't like Canada's Geography?
I'd advise you all read this, more for the bio and the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Philosophy literally means the love of wisdom.
Nearly everything used to be considered philosophy - science, mathematics, logic.
>>8076873
>Philosophy literally means the love of wisdom.
Let's see what a modern philosopher has to say about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1siWHmKV5c
>>8076878
Discussion as to whether wisdom is good or bad (if it can be either of those) (if either of those are meaningful) (if wisdom exists) (if discussion exists) (more philosophical tangents) is part of the pursuit of wisdom
>>8076873
philosophy is NOT science, or related to science, or any branch of science, or anything in any scientists scope. stop purposefully mislabelling things.
In all honesty, is there a place on the Internet where you can discuss consciousness without wanting to kill yourself after reading the same stupid comments all over again?
>>8076887
>philosophy is not related to science
David Hume is spinning in his grave right now
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
>>8076890
Look for a (proper) philosophy forum
>>8076897
> Scientist : After 20000 tests and peer reviews, we can publish our findings to the scientific community.
> Philosopher : I think therefore I am LOL xDD. Im such a profound person that its almost science.
philosotard pls stop trying so hard
>>8076909
Mathematicians thoroughly btfo
>>8076909
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/
You can't win.
>>8076924
> I'll just call all science philosophy and link some unscientific irrelevant article that doesn't even support my view
LMAO. Are all you philosotards this desperate ?
>>8076932
One acknowledges that scientific inquiry is in fact carried out in social settings and asks whether and how standard epistemology must be supplemented to address this feature. The other treats sociality as a fundamental aspect of knowledge and asks how standard epistemology must be modified from this broadly social perspective. Concerns in the supplementing approach include such matters as trust and answerability raised by multiple authorship, the division of cognitive labor, the reliability of peer review, the challenges of privately funded science, as well as concerns arising from the role of scientific research in society.
>>8076932
According to an extreme version of naturalistic epistemology, the project of traditional epistemology, pursued in an a priori fashion from the philosopher's armchair, is completely misguided. The "fruits" of such activity are demonstrably false theories such as foundationalism, as well as endless and arcane debates in the attempt to tackle questions to which there are no answers. To bring epistemology on the right path, it must be made a part of the natural sciences and become cognitive psychology. The aim of naturalistic epistemology thus understood is to replace traditional epistemology with an altogether new and redefined project. According to a moderate version of naturalistic epistemology, one primary task of epistemology is to identify how knowledge and justification are anchored in the natural world, just as it is the purpose of physics to explain phenomena like heat and cold, or thunder and lightning in terms of properties of the natural world. The pursuit of this task does not require of its proponents to replace traditional epistemology. Rather, this moderate approach accepts the need for cooperation between traditional conceptual analysis and empirical methods. The former is needed for the purpose of establishing a conceptual link between knowledge and reliability, the latter for figuring out which cognitive processes are reliable and which are not.
>>8076939
For reference, this quote is literally describing your view on epistemology - a mainly(entirely?) philosophical topic.
>>8076941
*
By your view on epistemology, I mean your epistemological view, & your view on other epistemologies.
>>8076937
>>8076939
Since you insist philosophy involving science, I'd like to see your scientific papers on how you construct your philosophical ideas and laws. Please provide the sample size you used, the methodology, the p value of the outcome of your tests as well as the peer reviewed research.
You shouldn't derail the discussion, change the subject or fail to provide these basic requirements of your scientific study in any way. I'm waiting...
>>8076953
The meaning of consciousness is the issue that prevents it from being a scientific matter. Philosophy is the only means by which we can hope to achieve a definition. Perhaps I should say "rational discourse" instead. Empirical data won't help you grasp the meaning of consciousness.
I never said all of philosophy was a science - it isn't, and even the opposite is debatable (particularly today, and they certainly have different implications).
>>8076964
Well atleast finally you accept that philosophy isn't science.
> The meaning of consciousness is the issue that prevents it from being a scientific matter.
I guess you have some sort of data that we don't know yet that tells you that consciousness is something beyond physics, which would only then be the case where it's dealt with anything but science.
>>8076974
Empirically prove that aioswfjioap exists
>>8076980
> I better answer his question with a question that makes no sense.
Why am I not surprised ?
>>8076991
Are you just messing with me or what?
I'm saying we need a GOOD, FALSIFIABLE DEFINITION of having consciousness
>thread about AI and conscience
>almost immediately devolved into shitflinging about whether or not philosophy is a science and the Malcom in the Middle theme song
>nothing on AI or conscience
>this is supposed to be the smart board
>>8077005
Maybe because of the inherent hatred of philosophy and bias against it many people born today have. They have no idea that skepticism, scientific naturalism and the like are philosophical positions.
I said this: >>8076651
And then this: >>8076664
And then I admit I was unhappy when >>8076679
suggested that all philosophy has to be this spiritualist or substance dualist nonsense
>>8077010
As an example, this is the first result for googling a definition of consciousness:
1. the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
2. a person's awareness or perception of something.
This would trivially include some AI.
>>8077027
>due to ...
In that case, you could prove it if an AI could mimic memory and feedback. Just simulating a human brain (as was done before for a few seconds on a supercomputer I believe) would constitute consciousness.
The "due to" is the key part because it provides information as to what you consider subjective experience.
>>8077008
I don't think you understand the core of hatred against philosphy on this board. Philosophy doesn't deal with proofs, it doesn't deal with anything definitive or credible. I'm sure you can come up with over a thousand philosophical theories based on nothing reliable but uneducated or even educated ideas. But no matter what you do, your theories will remain as theories and nothing more.
And thats why it's completely pointless to even bring philosophy to the table when looking for answers to such significant questions. Because only science aims to find out the truth with actually reliable ways. The methods of philosophy are not remotely comparable to neuroscience or physics or chemisty or anything else that actually studies the way universe works through an excruciating process of trial and error
>>8077042
>Philosophy doesn't deal with proofs
Yes it does.
>It doesn't deal with anything definitive or credible
What do you mean by definitive?
>A thousand philosophical theories ...
Such as the view that knowledge can be acquired ONLY through the use of the scientific method? (Though one could wonder how they came to that conclusion)
>Theories will remain theories
At what point does belief become knowledge?
That is (effectively) what epistemology is about.
One notable epistemology is the thorough use of scepticism and the scientific method. There are a lot of philosophers that are scientific realists (75% according to philpapers) "Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences."
>Only science has actually reliable ways
How did you reach this conclusion?
>>8077048
Perhaps we could make this into it's own thread, rather than discussing it here
>>8076006
Tell me how to objectively measure an agents consciousness and I'll let you know
VERY relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nbTrPwQudo
What's it like knowing that when conscious AI comes out it will immediately be granted human rights by all civilized countries, and the only people who disagree with this are 3rd worlders and retards on 4chan like you?
>>8077131
the piece of paper would totally be sentient
>>8077156
But would it possess consciousness?
>>8077169
So long as someone kept calculating it
>>8077027
How does feedback and memory alone create subjective experience though?
>>8077042
>But no matter what you do, your theories will remain as theories and nothing more.
>And thats why it's completely pointless to even bring philosophy to the table when looking for answers to such significant questions. Because only science aims to find out the truth with actually reliable ways
Maybe philosophy isn't about finding answers, but asking the right questions, so science can test it? I think if every scientist was also a philosopher, they would be much more likely to make new discoveries. If you're constantly coming up with philosophical theories, you have an interesting framework to work with when new scientific data is found, and it's more likely you'll figure something out. A lantern to help light the paths of knowledge, if you will.
>>8077151
The biggest challenge is knowing if it's conscious. We might have conscious AI already.
>>8076006
>attack_commences_in_30_seconds.jpg
There's a Heideggerian scholar named Hubert Dreyfus who wrote a famous book called What Computers Can't Do, where he politely reminds GOFAI people that what they are designing is not "consciousness" even on the best day. As airy-fairy as philosophy of mind / consciousness might be, and as annoying as it might be to try to understand something like Dasein, some version of it is probably necessary for a full understanding of the "embeddedness" of "self-motivating" actors.
There's a more updated recent version where he covers algorithms etc. as well, but I think (disappointingly) he doesn't touch on whether full brain simulations would qualify as conscious? I think he does talk about seed AIs a bit.
AI people are almost like watching an episode of Star Trek and constantly wanting answers to questions like "so.. does Data have feelings, or not? He seems to have motivations, but he supposedly had no 'investment' in those motivations? Doesn't complex motivation and ethical choice require investment? What is the underlying function of Data's consciousness? Is it similar to human consciousness? What about holograms? Is a perfect hyper-futuristic computer simulation of a human dangerously close to being a real mind? Is it unethical to create and destroy thousands of holodeck 'people' for entertainment?" but all the show actually gives you is "LOL THE HOLOGRAMS ALMOST MADE THE SHIP ASPLODE XD BUT IT WAS FINE IN THE END." AI people are constantly disappointingly naive about the philosophical implications of their own work.
Bostrom's book is pretty good for touching on a lot of things that they won't, whether you like it or not, but he only skirts on the philosophical and ethical issues. Which is fine since it's more about how AI would completely transform human life in an instant. But the most interesting parts of the book for me were when he talks about how a "conscious" mind may not have things we assume are inherent to it, like "subjectivity" or a transcendental ego.
>>8076006
It's too wicked and nihilistic to have consciousness
>>8076096
>>8076006
Consciousness is a buzzword.
>>8078581
interesting posts, thanks.
