Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22368515 - 10/12/15 02:34 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Not self awareness no, experience. Experience is a prerequisite for self-awareness. A dog doesn't have much self-awareness but it has experience.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22368520 - 10/12/15 02:36 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

i doubt bacteria is experiencing anything.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22368582 - 10/12/15 02:51 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Not sure I mentioned bacteria specifically but my point was that he was confusing self-awareness with experience and experience doesn't necessarily imply self-awareness and much more primitive forms of organisms have experience such as a worm or even plants.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22368615 - 10/12/15 02:57 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Not sure I mentioned bacteria specifically.




I did. Bacteria clearly has a survival drive, but unlikely experiences anything. I don't know why you equate survival drive to experience.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22368619 - 10/12/15 02:59 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Not sure I mentioned bacteria specifically but my point was that he was confusing self-awareness with experience and experience doesn't necessarily imply self-awareness and much more primitive forms of organisms have experience such as a worm or even plants.




Yes and, unrelated to that, Rahz is arguing that, regardless of self-awareness or lack thereof, an intelligent machine that can be as consciousless as a fencepost can still pose a huge threat for us.  Do you not agree?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22368818 - 10/12/15 03:35 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Yes and, unrelated to that, Rahz is arguing that, regardless of self-awareness or lack thereof, an intelligent machine that can be as consciousless as a fencepost can still pose a huge threat for us.  Do you not agree?




I mean sure if you design a dangerous computer or machine than yes could be dangerous and in the future AI and programming will get more and more sophisticated and amazing machines will be developed as programming gets more evolved. Still they will never operate beyond the programming and everything will be automatic and unconscious processes. They will never gain any real intelligence since intelligence is something that occurs in being. That is kind of why it is called artificial intelligence, artificial being not real intelligence but something that mimmicks intelligence.

Quote:

I did. Bacteria clearly has a survival drive, but unlikely experiences anything. I don't know why you equate survival drive to experience.




Yeah, I would disagree. To me that physical thing you see always has an internal aspect that corresponds to that image we perceive with our senses.. both sides of the same coin.

Even minerals and rocks are a form of experience and perception according to my Idealist world view as everything is more fundamentally mental.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22368850 - 10/12/15 03:41 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

If you believe that, then how can you deny that a robot or computer is incapable of experiencing?

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22368898 - 10/12/15 03:49 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

White Beard said:
If you believe that, then how can you deny that a robot or computer is incapable of experiencing?

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer.








That's an excellent question White Beard.  That's my whole take.  If consciousness is so ubiquitous, it is chauvinistic and closed-minded to think only biological organisms can possess it.  I think technology can harness  awareness no problem, given enough time and expenditure.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: clock_of_omens]
    #22368929 - 10/12/15 03:55 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

clock_of_omens said:
Quote:

soldatheero said:
Like I said I guess it is hypothetically possible for consciousness to utalize a synthetic body and experience itself through that. Still the line of causation should be understood, the material object isn't causing that experience or being to exist it is serving an instrument for that being to experience through. It's all way over our heads of how these things take place, how the soul is linked with matter and what not.

Hawkings speel there to me just reflects his materialist ignorance and IMO is very naive, nothing he describes there is a real threat. Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer. In my view experience and being are the real substance to reality and the world of the senses is an illusion. You cannot create something of substance from an illusion.




How is materialism ignorant and naive? What is it ignorant of?




If materialism was a significant attitude or point of view, what would it be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22368969 - 10/12/15 04:02 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

If you believe that, then how can you deny that a robot or computer is incapable of experiencing?




Because in my view that is not the way the evolution of consciousness works. Consciousness evolves itself through a series of steps and advances - a stone becomes a mineral a mineral a plant a plant a worm etc.. Consciousness is that driving force and the physical bodies follow consciousness not the other way around. So arranging matter in such some specific way will not create a consciousness because it is the degree of consciousness that determines the material body. More advanced streams of consciousness experience and express themselves through evolving complex material bodies. So a computer which is made of silicon and electrical energy is not going to generate a consciousness or cause it to occur.

Again I said it is hypothetically possible that far into the future from now a synthetic body could exist that consciousness could be tied to and experience through but this is a completely different vision than AI and "singularity enthusiasts have since they misunderstand the place of consciousness in nature. It is not just a material understanding that will make that possible but an internal understanding of higher inner laws of how the soul is linked with matter. Far beyond what I could understand. So again to me the idea that this is around the corner is sheer materialist fantasy and ignorance.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22368994 - 10/12/15 04:07 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Well, we'll have to stop discussing now because all you're doing is asserting your position as truth.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22369007 - 10/12/15 04:10 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Well you asked me how I could deny that a computer could be conscious and I did my best to explain it so.. uhh :tongue:


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22369189 - 10/12/15 04:40 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, but to support your position, you assert things to be true without evidence such as consciousness evolving itself through steps, and well i can't really discuss any further because you've given me nothing to argue. It's cute that you believe in such things, but well, i dont, so yeah...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22369695 - 10/12/15 06:12 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

So speaking of evidence where is the evidence that computers or machines will ever get consciousness or self awareness?


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22369733 - 10/12/15 06:18 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Strawman. Reread my posts. I only questioned your line of reasoning, never argued for computer sentience.

Also red herring cause you're trying to move the discussion away from the lack of evidence for your position.


Edited by White Beard (10/12/15 06:22 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22369952 - 10/12/15 06:56 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

There is no burden of argument to ask for empirical evidence of something. A.I doesn't exist.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Kurt]
    #22370024 - 10/12/15 07:10 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, but that wasn't my position. The fact that he was asking for evidence for something that wasn't my position instead of presenting evidence for his position is a strawman and a red herring.

Let me break it down.

My position: A machine may be able to produce consciousness
His position: A machine can never produce consciousness because of XYZ
Me: prove XYZ
Him: well, prove that a machine will ever produce consciousness!


Edited by White Beard (10/12/15 07:23 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22370152 - 10/12/15 07:37 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

If he wants evidence for why I suspect AI may be possible, then I think a good piece of evidence is the similarities between the brain and the computer.

ib4 'but you can't prove the brain produces consciousness'

I think a good piece of evidence for that is damage to certain areas of the brain decrease awareness of aspects of consciousness. e.g. if you damage the memory section of the brain, you loose or impair your ability to be experience memories.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22371182 - 10/12/15 10:35 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Hey DQ here's a contribution. Resist the machine brother!

Off the top of my head I can think of at least two well standing philosophers who have directly questioned the fundamental premise of A.I. Hubert Dreyfus, and John Searle.

I think a basis of formulating a question about the problems of technology should arguably be given in a more general and conservative basis.

The question of simulation in general, the spectre which is already hanging over consciousness today is what is more fundamentally significant. Where is this mindset - the compulsive and addictive mindset to technology really headed? Is it an inevitable thing? Maybe it is not as fun to think about, but that is what is already happening with simulation and consciousness. That is the real synthetic consciousness, and a false existence.

But here is a head on argument, as promised. If A.I. would be able to trick and deceive us, turn on us, like in a science fiction story, and we are expecting this, I think it begs the question in a general way if on our level of cognizance, or in our ability to empirically measure findings, our technology would be able to deceive us before it was conscious.

It has been said, quite conservatively and from similar naturalistic assumptions, that we would no longer be able to distinguish a principle of contradiction, or empirical falsification, much before there is anything anywhere nearly actually being conscious. This is because plainly we do not understand consciousness, in any given provisions let alone computationalism. We would be able to deceive ourselves much sooner in a certain way, and the subject would stretch beyond us, but not in a sufficient basis to determine consciousness as existing.

This basically an intuitive and generalized version of the problem of "hard A.I" as Searle presented it in the Chinese room argument. Here is a synopsis of that argument:


The argument and thought-experiment now generally known as the Chinese Room Argument was first published in a paper in 1980 by American philosopher John Searle (1932- ). It has become one of the best-known arguments in recent philosophy. Searle imagines himself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just as a computer does, he produces appropriate strings of Chinese characters that fool those outside into thinking there is a Chinese speaker in the room. The narrow conclusion of the argument is that programming a digital computer may make it appear to understand language but does not produce real understanding. Hence the “Turing Test” is inadequate. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is refuted. Instead minds must result from biological processes; computers can at best simulate these biological processes. Thus the argument has large implications for semantics, philosophy of language and mind, theories of consciousness, computer science and cognitive science generally. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument.


Here is another intuitive argument against AI. It's a common story in our culture. I'd say it is often the case that science fiction presents a criticism of itself which could also be potentially deconstructive of its own assumptions.

For example, the story in the movie "The Matrix" tells us the possible deceptions or turn of an artificial intelligence comes after the point that they are intelligent or conscious, much as Hawkings says. But by the end of the movie a distinction (romantic enough) is drawn between the perceived malevolence of the hard machines and what humans encounter in simulation as the "agent". Now to my mind no doubt agency is a question in this theoretical construct. To my mind the dissassociation at the end of the movie that is realized is deconstruction.

The truth about technology is maybe for example allegorical to the way we really turn technology against ourselves as humans, or at the same time become addicted to technology and simulations of reality and turn in on ourselves and atrophy in a less conscious and outwardly directed way via its simulation.

Take another example of AI's ostensible a posteriori problematic. There is this idea of putting a mood chip into a human like robot like Data, the Star Trek character, that is essentially making him act irrational or randomly. That is a construct, based on the way AI is an analogy to human consciousness, in the particular capacity in which we understand it. Not only does this beg the question if consciousness is computational. Are moods really without logic or is the significant fact about the reveries and compulsions we have called moods, that the logic they suggest is merely idiosycratic, and partial to itself, not lacking reason, but coming out of ones pathos or existence, or something inexplicable like love?

The common grounds of logical computation are questionable in that, and yet when people like Nietzsche say moods are irrational, or even the chaotic spark in us, to us, that is potentially something different than something viewed as just a jack in the box "unconscious" or "random" surprise being found in an otherwise ordered existence.

To paraphrase Aristotle "all conscious intents of human beings are for some end and therefore to speak of such an end is to speak of some form of good." Of course this can be completely arbitrary and inexplicable, and indeed it may be in a Nietzschean world (or single personality) of simultaneous competing drives that we find these motivations, but the principle does seem to stand, indeed for anything intelligible as consciousness. How can an end be suggested that is not for some form of good? What is consciousness but intent?

Hence phenomenological definitions of consciousness are of intentionality or epistemelogically, respectiveness to an object. Perhaps aside from epistemological issues we need to think decisively about means and ends...


Edited by Kurt (10/13/15 12:11 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: White Beard]
    #22371451 - 10/13/15 12:01 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Yes, but that wasn't my position. The fact that he was asking for evidence for something that wasn't my position instead of presenting evidence for his position is a strawman and a red herring.




OK then, going back you brought up bacteria and you claimed it does not have experience and yet has a drive to survive.

Where than is your evidence that it does not have any experience? Why assume it does not have experience? It is not like you would be able to tell just by looking at it, since that experience is invisible to your senses. I have said that in my view experience is what exists and it is everywhere in life and not just in the human brain, plants have it and they are half inanimate. Where exactly is this magical line in which experience just starts occuring?

I mean the brain, plants and primitive organisms are all made up of the same materials as the rest of the universe so why then do you assume there to be zero consciousness in minerals and metals and then boom experience starts when exactly? Is it a binary thing or is it analog? The human being being the highest level than what is the lowest level?

I have suggested some scientific evidence in QM that shows that this materialistic realistic view of reality is seriously questionable. My original point that materialism should not simply be assumed to be true still stands, Hawkins idea that consciousness of the human level should suddenly just appear because of increasing computing power assumes a very naive view consciousness' place in the physical world. IT just assumes his perspective that the brain is the producer of consciousness to be true, not very scientific.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy is Dead"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Asante 5,287 65 05/04/16 03:49 PM
by akira_akuma
* Stephen Hawking on God
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
DiploidM 11,792 264 10/29/10 07:33 AM
by johnm214
* against AI
( 1 2 3 4 all )
laughingdog 1,697 62 05/21/17 11:33 AM
by Yellow Pants
* Hawking on Death Anxiety
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
DiploidM 3,814 81 02/17/12 11:11 AM
by 4896744
* What happens when AI knows it doesn't need us?
( 1 2 all )
Cognitive_Shift 1,888 33 02/26/10 10:53 AM
by explosiveoxygen
* AI exists with almost certainty
( 1 2 all )
hTx 1,920 29 12/25/14 12:10 AM
by hTx
* Materialistic, Nihlistic, Egomaniacs.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
teknix 5,239 134 01/12/12 03:04 PM
by NetDiver
* What is consciousness ?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Brainstem 5,131 158 12/07/10 09:52 PM
by daytripper23

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,676 topic views. 0 members, 12 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.