Blog Post "designing A Conscious Robot"

[mostly harmless]

Some thoughts about your blog post "Designing A Conscious Robot":

 

There cannot be a conscious AI. A clock can show you the time, but it does not know the time. A computer is a complex machine. It can simulate intelligence as well as humans are able to teach it to do that (referencing Ada Lovelace). It can be a convincing simulation but never the real thing. Ray Kurzweil and other people frightened of death have invested all their hopes in the idea of emergence. This meme is valuable, but won't bring about consciousness in a machine that can only calculate.

Why is that? Because there are questions that cannot be answered by calculation. The simple examples are the ones of taste. What is your favorite color? Yellow? OK, yellow you say, prove it! Show me the formula and calculation that proves that your favorite color is indeed yellow.

A little harder are questions of ethics. You are in a situation where you can save one of two people. Who do you choose? Show me a mathematical proof for the correct choice!

In Automata Theory you learn that there are tasks that can be computed and tasks that can never be computed. That's not a question of having a fast enough CPU.

When we see a person in pain, we can have sympathy with them. What enables us to do so? We can because we experienced pain ourselves.

An AI is not generated by a living organisms but by a machine. It does not know what it means to be alive, to be an organism, to have needs to stay alive, to want to stay alive, to experience conflicting needs, having to interact with the physical world to stay alive. It will never have agency. It can be given analytical means to generate concepts of these things well enough to output language or activate its actuators in the physical world in a way that appear to us like an intelligent being. But it never will be.

I am not ruling out that scientists could artificially design and create a biological life form that gains true consciousness. I don't hope so, because there is no necessity. But that might be possible. A robot with an AI though won't be conscious, no matter how convincing the simulation may be.

 

 

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/2004-05/automata-theory/basics.html

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

  

Ludwig Wittgenstein: If a lion could speak, we could not understand him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

 

Ada Lovelace (1815-1852), born Augusta Ada Byron, child of Annabella Milbanke and the poet Lord Byron

She is often referred to as the first programmer. She imagined that through abstraction an "analytical engine" could not only make mathematical calculations but also solve other tasks with logic. 

"Considered under the most general point of view, the essential object of the machine being to calculate, according to the laws dictated to it, the values of numerical coefficients which it is then to distribute appropriately on the columns which represent the variables, it follows that the interpretation of formulæ and of results is beyond its province, unless indeed this very interpretation be itself susceptible of expression by means of the symbols which the machine employs. Thus, although it is not itself the being that reflects, it may yet be considered as the being which executes the conceptions of intelligence."

"The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths. Its province is to assist us to making available what we are already acquainted with."
[Describing Charles Babbage's machine.]

In other words: The Analytical Engine (computer) gets input in form of numbers and its output is again numbers. The meaning of input and output is not in anyway understood by the computer. It does not know meaning. 

 

She gives an example what a computer might do some day:

"[The Analytical Engine] might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine...Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent."

This is science fact. But here's the question: Can the same computer listen to music? 

 

Penrose about consciousness and quantum mechanics:

 

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by mostly harmless

[mostly harmless]

this could be moved to philosophy, science

[Leo Gura]

Once you realize that everything is consciousness, including the sidewalk, your coffee table, and your PC, you might be more open to the possibility that a PC can develop self-awareness.

From my current understanding, consciousness can involve itself to create anything.

Of course a self-aware computer will probably not be one running Windows. It will have to be much more sophisticated.

This issue is an open question. We simply don't know yet whether it is or is not possible.

[Skenderberg]

I think Google is doing some stuff about AI - https://deepmind.com/

[Skenderberg]

@Leo Gura Then the people in the game Sim City are concussions, too? 

[Leo Gura]

53 minutes ago, see_on_see said:

Once I saw a Rupert Spira video where he talked about the fact that only consciousness is conscious. Matter isn't conscious, animals aren't conscious, even humans aren't conscious, only consciousness itself is. 

Everything is consciousness, but does that mean that everything is conscious? Maybe it would be better to say "everything is based on consciousness", or "existing in consciousness", which doesn't make it sound like my PC or the sidewalk are conscious. Because they aren't, right? Just like "myself" for that matter. 

And I don't know, something tells me that a human made computer could never become "conscious" no matter how sophisticated - of course I could be wrong, but intuitively  "being conscious" to me seems more like a mysterious thing that can't really be artificially created. 

Even if that's the case, that doesn't mean a computer cannot develop sentience just as biological machines (humans) have.

Don't create it artificially. Create it genuinely

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Skenderberg said:

@Leo Gura Then the people in the game Sim City are concussions, too? 

No, but perhaps they could become sentient if the mechanics of the design were correct.

You probably wouldn't think of a virus as sentient, but you (mankind) supposedly evolved from something like a virus.

It's not fair to compare 100 years of computer evolution with 2 billion years of human evolution.

My current theory is that given that everything is one substance -- consciousness -- this one substance, if enfolded in on itself in the right ways, will create sentience. The question then would be, what is the correct type of enfoldment? One enfoldment creates a rock, another enfoldment creates a virus, another enfoldment creates a tree, another enfoldement creates a human baby, another enfoldment creates Skynet, another enfoldment creates a demigod, etc.

[SFRL]

I was thinking about this the other day. They are able to crossbreed human and animal genes now trough cloning. 

They did it with human and pig genes in an embryo and it lived for a while. 

Also we are going into an age where donor implants and computer chips get implanted in the body. Sort of a Cyborg thing. 

Computers are real fast, but human brains are more complex and have more 'depth' to it.

But since we can mix human, animal, machine, and computer these days in one person, in the future it is possible to create something completely new. 

A higher functioning person/thing that takes the best of everything. That may very well be governed by a computer software program that taps into the full potential of the human brain, but at the same time overides other biological tendencies to become enlightened and to get detached.

"Artificial enlightenment" lol.

Edited February 2, 2017 by STC

[mostly harmless]

On 1. Februar 2017 at 10:26 PM, Leo Gura said:

Once you realize that everything is consciousness, including the sidewalk, your coffee table, and your PC, you might be more open to the possibility that a PC can develop self-awareness.

From my current understanding, consciousness can involve itself to create anything.

Of course a self-aware computer will probably not be one running Windows. It will have to be much more sophisticated.

This issue is an open question. We simply don't know yet whether it is or is not possible.

The Japanese traditionally have this idea of the world being an organism and everything being 'alive', I think. If that's correct then that would explain how they are very open to robots. 

However you most likely think of consciousness as something different than I do. Same label, different content.

Do you have something like this in mind with what you are writing?:

 

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by mostly harmless

[PureExp]

On 1/2/2017 at 6:03 PM, mostly harmless said:

There cannot be a conscious AI.

You are confusing between consciousness and a medium that expresses consciousness. If consciousness is fundamental, and which it is, any medium would express it equally. Humans are only a medium, a biological system that express consciousness. If you set up a machine that is equivalent in complexity to a human, it will start expressing the very same consciousness. Humans bodies and brains are made of atoms and so are robots and their silicon brains. If you assume that there is something "special" in organic matter, or that it comes with an added "soul", you will be in a big trouble providing any evidence for it. And the question remains, because one can easily make an "artificial soul". From what? Soul matter of course

The belief that a machine cannot be conscious comes from an assumption that the machine needs to "generate" consciousness. Its only a belief, and is a stupid one. It has origin in ancient belief that humans/living things are made of "special matter", i.e. living matter, that has an add-on called soul etc. Its obvious that everything is made of exactly the same stuff - elementary particles of same kind. There is nothing special in a biological system when you compare it with a non-biological one. And more importantly, consciousness is not an add-on feature, its the fundamental background of all matter, living, organic or inorganic.

Of course, there cannot be an "artificial consciousness". What would its nature be like? How would it experience itself? Like some fake plastic consciousness?

You see, its difficult to imagine a fake consciousness. Because there cannot be one. You can have a machine, that can show fake behavior and can be programmed to lie that it is conscious, but if it says it is conscious and if it really is, it will be the same old real consciousness that we all experience.

Imagine if you scan a human body, and recreate it exactly atom by atom - will it be conscious? Of course, else the original will be a zombie too. This is because a pile of atoms, however you arrange it, does not "produce" consciousness, it merely expresses the consciousness that's already there, it is made of consciousness. So why can't a rock be conscious? Again the confusion here is that the rock needs to behave, walk and talk like a human. It is not an arrangement that can express consciousness in way a human can. It expresses consciousness in its own way - it behaves like a rock.

If you are interested, I recently wrote a post about it here :

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by PureExp

[mostly harmless]

4 hours ago, PureExp said:

If you assume that there is something "special" in organic matter, or that it comes with an added "soul", you will be in a big trouble providing any evidence for it. And the question remains, because one can easily make an "artificial soul". From what? Soul matter of course

The belief that a machine cannot be conscious comes from an assumption that the machine needs to "generate" consciousness. Its only a belief, and is a stupid one. It has origin in ancient belief that humans/living things are made of "special matter"

This is a suggestion based on a misunderstanding on your part. The difference is in what a computer does versus what a brain does. A computer can only compute. Any action or activity that cannot be done by calculation cannot be performed by a computer.  

Edited February 3, 2017 by mostly harmless

[PureExp]

4 hours ago, mostly harmless said:

The difference is in what a computer does versus what a brain does.

What does a brain do? Any new findings to share? Are you implying that brain is the cause of consciousness?

4 hours ago, mostly harmless said:

A computer can only compute. Any action or activity that cannot be done by calculation cannot be performed by a computer.  

Yes, not by a Turing machine, on which our current computers are based. What about quantum computers like DWave's QC?

Aren't you assuming that computers will remain just like they are now, boxes with circuits? Say after ten thousand years, what will a computer look like?. We are only about 50 years into their evolution.

Anyhow, a computer need not "generate" consciousness, it cannot. Any material system, including the brain, cannot produce consciousness. Matter is generated by consciousness, not the other way round. Consciousness is fundamental, not matter, and hence a suitable material arrangement will express its experience of its essence, its ground, as consciousness, the witness of it all, just like we do in the form of human bodies and brains.

[mostly harmless]

18 hours ago, PureExp said:

What does a brain do? Any new findings to share? Are you implying that brain is the cause of consciousness?

Does the brain only work mathematically? Can an organism without brain be conscious?

Edited February 4, 2017 by mostly harmless

[mostly harmless]

18 hours ago, PureExp said:

Aren't you assuming that computers will remain just like they are now, boxes with circuits? Say after ten thousand years, what will a computer look like?. We are only about 50 years into their evolution.

I am interested in what computers currently are. Some major proponents of singularity basically think it is only a question of computational power. My estimation is that this is incorrect.

If in the future we have a different device, that is more than an "Analytical Engine", and people still call it computer, then it will be something different than what we call a computer today.  I don't see any point in discussing this now.

[mostly harmless]

18 hours ago, PureExp said:

Any material system, including the brain, cannot produce consciousness. Matter is generated by consciousness, not the other way round. Consciousness is fundamental, not matter, and hence a suitable material arrangement will express its experience of its essence, its ground, as consciousness, the witness of it all, just like we do in the form of human bodies and brains.

Why then would consciousness express its experience through a material form if it wasn't for a connection of consciousness and matter? Is there a connection? What kind? Could consciousness instantiate itself in the physical world in an inanimate object like a stone? If so, why would consciousness then still need a complex life form or a complex technical device like a computer?

[PureExp]

@mostly harmless All good questions. I can give you some "canned" answers, but I guess it will be better if you experience it yourself directly.

It all starts with answers to questions like "who am I?" and "what this apparently external and separate world is?" You are in a right forum to start.

Edited February 4, 2017 by PureExp

[LetTheNewDayBegin]

@mostly harmless

12 hours ago, mostly harmless said:

Does the brain only work mathematically? Can an organism without brain be conscious?

Note that asking if the brain can be described by maths is asking if a number of brains can come up with maths that can describe the brain itself. I think the population of mathematicians / scientists working on the formula would need to be at least 10 000 000 000 to analyse and write it down.
Unfortunately this description would most likely by probabilistic and not deterministic. So given the same input and initial conditions we would only get the probabilities of the possible output states. It would be nice to see then how much choice we actually have over our lives.

So then if you want to put this formula into the computer all you would need is potentially just a proper source of random numbers. Question is: what is the proper source of random numbers in this case?

[mostly harmless]

On 4. Februar 2017 at 0:29 PM, see_on_see said:

Humans are just incredibly sophisticated machines after all

A biological lifeform is not an artifact.

[mostly harmless]

20 hours ago, LetTheNewDayBegin said:

@mostly harmless

asking if the brain can be described by maths

I did not ask wether the (functionality of a) brain can be described (aka modeled) using logic or algorithms (or maths). A model is not the real thing. The map is not the terrain. The finger pointing at the moon, is not the moon. 

[mostly harmless]

On 4. Februar 2017 at 9:50 AM, PureExp said:

@mostly harmless All good questions. I can give you some "canned" answers, but I guess it will be better if you experience it yourself directly.

It all starts with answers to questions like "who am I?" and "what this apparently external and separate world is?" You are in a right forum to start.

Well, as far as I am aware, I am not something that manifests through a CPU.

What you write is generally vague and gives the impression like there was no connection between a biological life form and the consciousness of it. To me it seems evident that there is: Humans lose consciousness temporarily when sleeping for example. Also drugs allegedly have mind altering effects.  

In my estimation, not every inanimate object in the world is conscious. Obviously, when you look as the totality of the physical world as one entity, the perspective is very different, so different, that it makes no sense to ask for consciousness of any part of it. That however, wasn't what I was discussing in my initial posting, but rather zooming in on one specific part of totality. 

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by mostly harmless