Consciousness: Is It Possible?

[timtofly]

Probably someone will do it just to show they can.

Because emotions are fantastic things. Yes, they can be negative, but overall, the positives from them outweigh those for me. Joy, love etc. These are things that I would want AI to experience simply because they are so wonderful, and I think that everyone, everything, deserves to enjoy them. I don't want AI to be uncaring zombie slaves. I want them to be thinking, feeling, individuals like us.

Well, we create laboratory mice that suffer from (e.g.,) schizophrenia symptoms or depression symptoms in order to learn more about the disease. I'd certainly not say that this is moral, but we do it with the endgame of improving the human condition.

My point was not a moral one. Neither was it one of sensation, or even experience. My thought was consciousness is not the driving or pre-programmed code. Consciousness in the result of "learning" and "experiencing". It cannot be programed into a entity. It has to be lived out.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I doubt that Siri v101.5 will ever love me, even if I fall in love with her.

 

[Perfection]

I wouldn't blame Siri for that.

 

[PhroX]

My point was not a moral one. Neither was it one of sensation, or even experience. My thought was consciousness is not the driving or pre-programmed code. Consciousness in the result of "learning" and "experiencing". It cannot be programed into a entity. It has to be lived out.

But who's to say we can't program in the ability to "live"? To learn and experience? That if we set up the program in the right way, the AI will develop emotions, develop conciousness from it's experiences? That the code will evolve?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I wouldn't blame Siri for that.

No need to blame anyone. Just use the warranty and get it exchanged for Siri Nympho Deluxe version...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But who's to say we can't program in the ability to "live"? To learn and experience? That if we set up the program in the right way, the AI will develop emotions, develop conciousness from it's experiences? That the code will evolve?

Nature says that. Ability to live has been developing for aeons and we are merely aware of it. We cant even fully control our basic bodily functions but already have the guts to say that we can program live? we dont control our senses and mind but are dreaming of creating something which can learn and experience?

True you can develop consciousness through experiences but what is it which experiences and what it is that develops? Intelect, senses, emotions? These are just an instruments for experience we are neither of them and any creation of ours cannot be a living entity unless we first completely master our own life.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, like I said above, emotions are percepts, but with a fuzzy sensory apparatus. The AI might not really ever 'develop' emotions unless there's an evolutionary reason to do so. Our other sensory percepts are evolved, too, but they not nearly as cognitively weak as our emotional percepts.

 

[timtofly]

I doubt that Siri v101.5 will ever love me, even if I fall in love with her.

There may be a simple reason why Siri is not programmed with emotion. She may stop being (for the most part) a good direction giver.

The studies on the brain show that when we experience certain emotions and feelings there is a chemical process going on in the brain that does effect and add to the brain. So the brain does change and "grow" from each emotional experience. It is all part of human development. To create an artificial entity that does the exact same thing may be a "fun" endeavor, but seems redundant and unnecessary. While experiences are unique to each individual, and also creates social bonds with others, would not a "machine" just be like a recorder and not an actual being that would take advantage of such knowledge? I am not ruling out the possibility of such an endeavor, but the plausibility. Are we going for something that would make humans obsolete?

Back to consciousness. Is it pre-programmed "software" or just the result of the hardware in action thus software created by the hardware?

 

[peter grimes]

I think it's an emergent property of the hardware. I wouldn't quite call it software, though. The closest thing to software would be a system of thought - like Euclidean Geometry, or Boolean Logic, or a Philosophy.

 

[Kyriakos]

I was recently reading a bit on Comets, and ultimately it led to Anaxagoras, an astronomer from Klazomenae, one of the main cities of the region of Ionia in the western coast of Asia Minor.
Anaxagoras later on moved to Athens, due to the failed Ionian revolt against Persia. At roughly 466 BC a comet was sighted above AigosPotamoi, a region in Thrace, along the Bosphorus. It is probable that the views of Anaxagoras in regards to the stars being vast fiery cores, were playing a role in the examination of that event, given that it appears a meteorite also fell at the time of the comet's perihelion, and made enough of an impression so as to be even mentioned by Aristotle an aeon later.

Anaxagoras was famous for largely two of his theories. The one was of the massive fiery cores above, being the stars. The other was his view that all objects consist of an infinite amount of tiny particles (the term 'atom' was given by him, and means 'indivisable').

While he later fled Athens due to the decline in popularity of Pericles, who was a student of his, he is widely regarded as crucial in the first stages of Greek astronomy, which later on (mostly during the Hellenistic era) would provide figures such as Eratosthenes, and in the early Roman Era of Alexandria, Ptolemy.

But the view of Anaxagoras i wanted to base this thread on was that the human mind was not just another object to be examined, but the one by which everything else is examined and itself is not subject to the same kind of analysis. At roughly the same time, another thinker, Protagoras, had claimed in one of his famous apophegms that "Man is the meter of all things". Anaxagoras not only claims this, but moreover that man is not really part of those things at all, because his mind is not one of them, but is a mechanism of examination of them.

Terminology is crucial, of course. Anaxagoras always used the term "nous" (νου&#962 to refer to the driving force being the human mind. I assume he meant a core of consciousness, linked to will and the ability to deliberately think of something, cause the term even today refers to that, and not to the mind as a whole, or as a material organ.

*

The introductory question of the thread is whether you agree with Anaxagoras that our core of consciousness is not of the same type as anything we can examine, and thus is not to be taken as one of those objects of examination. If it is of a very different form, a bit like the number "1" is a number, but at the same time a common meter of all other numbers.

 

[Gatsby]

Core?? What core?

 

[Glassfan]

While we owe the Greeks a debt of gratitude for getting the scientific ball rolling, I think it's safe to say we've since moved on. One wouldn't ask if we agree with Anaximander on evolution, nor Aristotle on gravity - why consult Anaxagoras on Philosophy?

The Greeks were trailblazers, but the paths are now well travelled and mapped by their intellectual inheritors.

 

[Kyriakos]

While we owe the Greeks a debt of gratitude for getting the scientific ball rolling, I think it's safe to say we've since moved on. One wouldn't ask if we agree with Anaximander on evolution, nor Aristotle on gravity - why consult Anaxagoras on Philosophy?

The Greeks were trailblazers, but the paths are now well travelled and mapped by their intellectual inheritors.

Reading philosophy one sees the claim that it has not developed past being a commentary on the early philosophy. Many famous thinkers of the 20th century refer to this, and they have multitudes of quotes from the ancient philosophers. So your point is either not well-informed, or meant to not be helpful anyway

Philosophical views have projections on following aeons too. For example this view of Anaxagoras can easily mean that our ability to self-reflect is entirely of different quality than any of our abilities to examine other objects. It is not at all a bygone view, given than degrees of idealism are very much still in existence and expressed by major thinkers (be they philosophers or artists). And this specific view goes beyond idealism, in a manner alluded to in my OP.

Core?? What core?

What is meant by that is our defining ability to deliberate on what we examine, what we think. Our will to think, so to speak.

 

[Borachio]

Doesn't that involve you in an infinite regress, though?

So, for example, what would be the "core" that contemplates the "core"? Or the "defining ability" that deliberates on what we examine (in your terms).

A hard non-dualist (like myself) would say all you have is the workings of the brain. And leave it at that. There's no real need to postulate a "core".

You don't need any "will" to think. You simply think.

You can demonstrate this to yourself quite easily: now, "will" yourself to think. What did you do?

 

[Kyriakos]

Doesn't that involve you in an infinite regress, though?

So, for example, what would be the "core" that contemplates the "core"? Or the "defining ability" that deliberates on what we examine (in your terms).

A hard non-dualist (like myself) would say all you have is the workings of the brain. And leave it at that. There's no real need to postulate a "core".

You don't need any "will" to think. You simply think.

You can demonstrate this to yourself quite easily: now, "will" yourself to think. What did you do?

While i tend to agree that endless spirals seldom lead to a more elegant conclusion, on the other hand a core having infinite cores is not really that far-fetched, and in math it is quite usual to try to organize things in such a manner [eg infinite amount of prime numbers (theorem), then infinite pairs of prime numbers (hypothesis) and so on].

As for willing to think, there are people with severe mental illness who are no longer able to "will" what they think. A person who hears voices is a known example of this, and it can get a lot more pronounced i suppose, to the point of virtually having near to no control of what is "thought" at all. So it is a very real (and utterly crucial) ability, to be deliberately willing to think something.

 

[peter grimes]

Moderator Action: Merged with the thread already discussing Consciousness

 

[Gatsby]

While i tend to agree that endless spirals seldom lead to a more elegant conclusion, on the other hand a core having infinite cores is not really that far-fetched, and in math it is quite usual to try to organize things in such a manner [eg infinite amount of prime numbers (theorem), then infinite pairs of prime numbers (hypothesis) and so on].

As for willing to think, there are people with severe mental illness who are no longer able to "will" what they think. A person who hears voices is a known example of this, and it can get a lot more pronounced i suppose, to the point of virtually having near to no control of what is "thought" at all. So it is a very real (and utterly crucial) ability, to be deliberately willing to think something.

Infinite cores sounds an awful lot like "no real core at all" to me.

I don't know about you, but I have certainly experienced thoughts in my mind that I disagree with. But I "chose" not to act on them because they went against my psychological inclinations and behavioural habits. Over time the incidence of such wayward thoughts generally reduces as the mind becomes more habituated to thinking according to its established inclinations. This self-reinforcing cycle gives rise to the illusion of one's willing to think something.

 

[timtofly]

Doesn't that involve you in an infinite regress, though?

So, for example, what would be the "core" that contemplates the "core"? Or the "defining ability" that deliberates on what we examine (in your terms).

A hard non-dualist (like myself) would say all you have is the workings of the brain. And leave it at that. There's no real need to postulate a "core".

You don't need any "will" to think. You simply think.

You can demonstrate this to yourself quite easily: now, "will" yourself to think. What did you do?

Infinite cores sounds an awful lot like "no real core at all" to me.

I don't know about you, but I have certainly experienced thoughts in my mind that I disagree with. But I "chose" not to act on them because they went against my psychological inclinations and behavioural habits. Over time the incidence of such wayward thoughts generally reduces as the mind becomes more habituated to thinking according to its established inclinations. This self-reinforcing cycle gives rise to the illusion of one's willing to think something.

There is no core. Each individual is the will to act upon thoughts. Where those thoughts come from is the unknown. That one wishes away this unknown is up to them, but one is still free to act upon any new thought that arises. Can any one explain to me what happens if the unknown did not generate thoughts?

It seems plain enough that humans would just keep rehashing the thoughts they already had. That does not work for advancing much though. When it comes to ingrained habits, it would be well nigh impossible. Even if humans could imagine their own ideas into the future, and then set about with science to enable that, there may be some breakthrough now and again, but even the great minds in their respective fields admit, that sometimes those breakthroughs happened beyond explanation.

It seems to me that things happened when humans did go after the unexplainable thoughts, instead of dismissing them and sticking with tradition.

 

[Souron]

I was recently reading a bit on Comets, and ultimately it led to Anaxagoras, an astronomer from Klazomenae, one of the main cities of the region of Ionia in the western coast of Asia Minor.
Anaxagoras later on moved to Athens, due to the failed Ionian revolt against Persia. At roughly 466 BC a comet was sighted above AigosPotamoi, a region in Thrace, along the Bosphorus. It is probable that the views of Anaxagoras in regards to the stars being vast fiery cores, were playing a role in the examination of that event, given that it appears a meteorite also fell at the time of the comet's perihelion, and made enough of an impression so as to be even mentioned by Aristotle an aeon later.

Anaxagoras was famous for largely two of his theories. The one was of the massive fiery cores above, being the stars. The other was his view that all objects consist of an infinite amount of tiny particles (the term 'atom' was given by him, and means 'indivisable').

While he later fled Athens due to the decline in popularity of Pericles, who was a student of his, he is widely regarded as crucial in the first stages of Greek astronomy, which later on (mostly during the Hellenistic era) would provide figures such as Eratosthenes, and in the early Roman Era of Alexandria, Ptolemy.

But the view of Anaxagoras i wanted to base this thread on was that the human mind was not just another object to be examined, but the one by which everything else is examined and itself is not subject to the same kind of analysis. At roughly the same time, another thinker, Protagoras, had claimed in one of his famous apophegms that "Man is the meter of all things". Anaxagoras not only claims this, but moreover that man is not really part of those things at all, because his mind is not one of them, but is a mechanism of examination of them.

Terminology is crucial, of course. Anaxagoras always used the term "nous" (νου&#962 to refer to the driving force being the human mind. I assume he meant a core of consciousness, linked to will and the ability to deliberately think of something, cause the term even today refers to that, and not to the mind as a whole, or as a material organ.

*

The introductory question of the thread is whether you agree with Anaxagoras that our core of consciousness is not of the same type as anything we can examine, and thus is not to be taken as one of those objects of examination. If it is of a very different form, a bit like the number "1" is a number, but at the same time a common meter of all other numbers.

I think that people treat the seat of consciousness specially but that doing so is unjustified. Perhaps we do this because we see ourselves within and everything else from without. So asking the question like this underscores that there is in fact no good reason to treat consciousness specially. Any seat of consciousness or "soul" we may have is as comprehensible as any other object or process found in nature. And it is subject to the same method of analysis as nature, namely the scientific method.

 

[timtofly]

I think that people treat the seat of consciousness specially but that doing so is unjustified. Perhaps we do this because we see ourselves within and everything else from without. So asking the question like this underscores that there is in fact no good reason to treat consciousness specially. Any seat of consciousness or "soul" we may have is as comprehensible as any other object or process found in nature. And it is subject to the same method of analysis as nature, namely the scientific method.

I don't see turning the conscious into a physical thing happening until some one can explain where thoughts come from. Now the method that you have prescribed may be able to predict and catalogue behavior, but I see it doing little to explain that behavior or nature in a way that takes it from the "unknown" into the known.

Even if we could eventually stop the ongoing process of thoughts appearing, what have we accomplished? It would seem we would have lost something. Not gained it. If we could come up with thoughts on our own where would we get new thoughts to send to ourselves?