Consciousness: what it is, where it comes from, do machines can have it and why do we care?

[EvaDK]

Chess computers use a value based regime to calculate and determine the best moves. They can do this, because they have been given the data of tens of thousands of real played games, to use as a baseline for searching the most valuable sequence of moves. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. There is no 'thinking' going on when the light diode blinks; it's simply searching and evaluating millions of move combinations, until it has to chose the one with the highest value found so far. They can also apply randomness to the choice of their move, if different highest value move combinations are almost same value.

It has the potential and it eventually does it later in its/his/her life. And you can't talk "babish", so how do you know that the baby isn't making fun of your blouse in baby talk already?

Well, when does a fetus or newborn become consciousness according to you? What triggers the initial spark of consciousness?

 

[Somebody613]

Chess computers use a value based regime to calculate and determine the best moves. They can do this, because they have been given the data of tens of thousands of real played games, to use as a baseline for searching the most valuable sequence of moves. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. There is no 'thinking' going on when the light diode blinks; it's simply searching and evaluating millions of move combinations, until it has to chose the one with the highest value found so far.



Well, when does a fetus or newborn become consciousness according to you? What triggers the initial spark of consciousness?

Em, do you AGREE with me on the chess topic?

Where did I say it's a "ongoing real time state" and not a "total sum potential"?
A bird has the potential to fly, but it also spends a lot of time on the ground - so can or can't it fly during those periods when it DOESN'T?

 

[tjs282]

Video proof with a clear scientific explanation, please? Just to be sure it actually happened, ya know.

Even if I could (be bothered to) google you up a video to watch, do you actually know ASL, or would you just have to take the word of the human participants that Koko was actually signing what they said she was signing?

(She died in 2018, and most of the ground-breaking research and publications were done way back in the late 70s/early 80s, when she was still pretty young)

 

[Somebody613]

Even if I could (be bothered to) google you up a video to watch, do you actually know ASL, or would you just have to take the word of the human participants that Koko was actually signing what they said she was signing?

(She died in 2018, and most of the ground-breaking research and publications were done way back in the late 70s/early 80s, when she was still pretty young)

I would, if they simply showed which signs were combined into what. I can see fingers, no?
Whether I'd believe it being genuine, is a different question - but I think it's telling that you pretty much want to assume that nobody made a point out of what I'm asking.
In any case, "not wanting to bother" usually means "having nothing to counter with, but playing sly in order to silence the opposition's request".
Not always, but often enough.

 

[EvaDK]

Em, do you AGREE with me on the chess topic?

Where did I say it's a "ongoing real time state" and not a "total sum potential"?
A bird has the potential to fly, but it also spends a lot of time on the ground - so can or can't it fly during those periods when it DOESN'T?

My chess comment was not linked to the consciousness discussion; it's not meant as an input to that. I'm just explaining how a chess computer works and it works like all other computers - it can perform any task it has been programmed to perform; nothing more.

Not sure what you're getting at. I just asked a question. I already declared my definition of consciousness; it's awareness. Consciousness manifests itself when awareness is initially created.

 

[Somebody613]

My chess comment was not linked to the consciousness discussion; it's not meant as an input to that. I'm just explaining how a chess computer works and it works like all other computers - it can perform any task it has been programmed to perform; nothing more.

Not sure what you're getting at. I just asked a question. I already declared my definition of consciousness; it's awareness. Consciousness manifests itself when awareness is initially created.

This is precisely my point as well, so we do agree on "chess computers".

How do you gauge awareness, though?
You do realize that even microbes react to external conditions changing, so are they "aware" of "it being warmer THERE and colder HERE"?
Where does the "quantum leap" difference lie in the first place?

 

[EvaDK]

I have no idea if microbes or other very simple lifeforms have 'awareness', or if they are just genetically programmed to behave in a certain way to stimuli, for their own survival.

I don't see any behavior from them, that makes the question worth pondering over, though. So, I won't.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You do realize that even microbes react to external conditions changing, so are they "aware" of "it being warmer THERE and colder HERE"?
Where does the "quantum leap" difference lie in the first place?

Thank you for making my point that microbes have consciousness!

If one defines consciousness as something that can only be demonstrated by humans, guess what! You will only consider humans to possess it. The best was to do that is not with the subtleties of invention, but to just say; Humans are the only creatures to possess consciousness; it is a human trait not found in non humans. Case closed. That avoids all the arguments over whether or not Koko has invented words.

Good definitions avoid ambiguity.

 

[Somebody613]

Thank you for making my point that microbes have consciousness!

If one defines consciousness as something that can only be demonstrated by humans, guess what! You will only consider humans to possess it. The best was to do that is not with the subtleties of invention, but to just say; Humans are the only creatures to possess consciousness; it is a human trait not found in non humans. Case closed. That avoids all the arguments over whether or not Koko has invented words.

Good definitions avoid ambiguity.

Em... Was it a jab at me?
I was rather serious that I see "consciousness" as "imagination", and that one is best expressed via "inventing new concepts from scratch".
Let's say I kinda missed your point here.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Em... Was it a jab at me?
I was rather serious that I see "consciousness" as "imagination", and that one is best expressed via "inventing new concepts from scratch".
Let's say I kinda missed your point here.

Not a jab at all. You have a definition of consciousness that involves distinctly human characteristics and you resist accepting it in other critters. I assume that is purposeful or else your definition would be different. I was merely pointing out that limiting consciousness to humans is much simpler with a different definition.

In addition your definition of "invention to prove consciousness" seems limited to language. Crows bending wire to make a tool seems pretty inventive.

 

[Samson]

Sorry, I forgot to specify: A sign language that we can ALSO interact with THEM on. So, anything of the sort of "they speak, we reply, and then they reply back again, on topic".

We are trying

Project CETI is an international initiative to understand the communication of sperm whales using advances in Artificial Intelligence.

 

[Akka]

Chess computers use a value based regime to calculate and determine the best moves. They can do this, because they have been given the data of tens of thousands of real played games, to use as a baseline for searching the most valuable sequence of moves. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. There is no 'thinking' going on when the light diode blinks; it's simply searching and evaluating millions of move combinations, until it has to chose the one with the highest value found so far. They can also apply randomness to the choice of their move, if different highest value move combinations are almost same value.

Actually, I'd say that it's the basic bricks of intelligence right here, and I'd bet that the difference with "true" intelligence is more a matter of complexity than fundamentally different process. Using data to draw patterns and processing informations depending on hardware is basically what our brains do.

 

[tjs282]

n any case, "not wanting to bother" usually means "having nothing to counter with, but playing sly in order to silence the opposition's request".

Or it could just mean, I'm posting on my phone, which makes typing into a chore, never mind sifting through a whole bunch of random googled suggestions, just to win an internet argument.

You want the evidence, you can go look for it yourself, try starting on the wiki page for Koko the gorilla, which I already read (did you?).

 

[Hygro]

Some HUMANS did, though. And letters are but a very small subset of another rather small subset of what "imagination" is capable of.
You are literally grasping at straws here, because my point is that "consciousness" EXPRESSES itself via imagination - not that absolutely every human on Earth MUST invent something.
We CAN, we are ABLE to - so we ALL share the level of intelligence that I would call "consciousness".
And which I also still having been provided any proof that can be correctly observed in animals OR computers.
When someone shows me a sufficient example - I can re-evaluate it once again.
So far I've been given NONE, though.

Mice have imaginations, I was literally talking to a neuroscientist about this last week.

 

[Somebody613]

Not a jab at all. You have a definition of consciousness that involves distinctly human characteristics and you resist accepting it in other critters. I assume that is purposeful or else your definition would be different. I was merely pointing out that limiting consciousness to humans is much simpler with a different definition.

In addition your definition of "invention to prove consciousness" seems limited to language. Crows bending wire to make a tool seems pretty inventive.

I wasn't the one to use Koko as a base example, but I went with it, since it's a good one.
I also used an example of a chess computer "inventing" chess-piece checkers (when you only have chess at hand) as a form of "imagination", and it's incidental that humans also did this.
If anything, I'm not sure what ELSE could be used as a litmus test for a distinctively non-human intelligence, beyond communication skills.
And "we think that they have it" is the easiest way to LIE and ABUSE the "science proved it" fallacy, if we're actually honest with ourselves.
Hence why "using tools" would require the test subject to invent something it COULDN'T emulate by watching humans (or other subjects) - and that's way harder than mere sign language.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I wasn't the one to use Koko as a base example, but I went with it, since it's a good one.
I also used an example of a chess computer "inventing" chess-piece checkers (when you only have chess at hand) as a form of "imagination", and it's incidental that humans also did this.
If anything, I'm not sure what ELSE could be used as a litmus test for a distinctively non-human intelligence, beyond communication skills.
And "we think that they have it" is the easiest way to LIE and ABUSE the "science proved it" fallacy, if we're actually honest with ourselves.
Hence why "using tools" would require the test subject to invent something it COULDN'T emulate by watching humans (or other subjects) - and that's way harder than mere sign language.

Now I am confused. "Inventiveness" is different than communication skills as is intelligence. I do not understand how you connect those three things with consciousness. In your definition, how does consciousness manifest itself such that it is different than what critters can do? Is inventiveness the test? Language? How do you think we should test for consciousness? Is potential important? If a person once "tested" to have consciousness but has since failed to pass the test, does that mean they no longer have it? Testing for consciousness is fraught with problems even beyond those I've raised.

Crows making tools did not learn it from watching humans. The same applies to octopus. You should really watch My Octopus Teacher linked above. It is a short documentary.

 

[Somebody613]

Now I am confused. "Inventiveness" is different than communication skills as is intelligence. I do not understand how you connect those three things with consciousness. In your definition, how does consciousness manifest itself such that it is different than what critters can do? Is inventiveness the test? Language? How do you think we should test for consciousness? Is potential important? If a person once "tested" to have consciousness but has since failed to pass the test, does that mean they no longer have it? Testing for consciousness is fraught with problems even beyond those I've raised.

Crows making tools did not learn it from watching humans. The same applies to octopus. You should really watch My Octopus Teacher linked above. It is a short documentary.

Using tools is problematic, because you CAN'T KNOW whether it was or wasn't observed somewhere and then taught around many generations ago. Or maybe it's instinctual to begin with.
Communication is the primary choice because that way we can literally ASK the subject something and EXPECT them to reply coherently. It's just the easiest way to TEST cause-effect.
Also, when I say "consciousness", I literally mean "something that wasn't pre-programmed", and I actually do treat this topic as if ALL test subjects are "computers".
I never said this is a correct way to do it - but I'm yet to see any better ways either, so my point stands simply because nobody challenged it effectively enough yet.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Using tools is problematic, because you CAN'T KNOW whether it was or wasn't observed somewhere and then taught around many generations ago. Or maybe it's instinctual to begin with.
Communication is the primary choice because that way we can literally ASK the subject something and EXPECT them to reply coherently. It's just the easiest way to TEST cause-effect.
Also, when I say "consciousness", I literally mean "something that wasn't pre-programmed", and I actually do treat this topic as if ALL test subjects are "computers".
I never said this is a correct way to do it - but I'm yet to see any better ways either, so my point stands simply because nobody challenged it effectively enough yet.

This test limits consciousness to most, but not all "adult" humans.
"Communication is the primary choice because that way we can literally ASK the subject something and EXPECT them to reply coherently. It's just the easiest way to TEST cause-effect."

This also applies even more so to humans and is mostly a nonsense argument. Studying animals in the wild and in the lab has been going on for a very long time.
"Using tools is problematic, because you CAN'T KNOW whether it was or wasn't observed somewhere and then taught around many generations ago. Or maybe it's instinctual to begin with."

Good sources for tool use information.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210011607

10 Animals That Use Tools

From crows that craft twigs into usable objects to elephants that morph tree branches into fly swatters, the animal kingdom is full of adept tool makers.

www.livescience.com

The Mysterious Tool-Making Culture Shared by Crows and Humans

Many animal species use tools, from insects, elephants and sea urchins to apes, badgers and octopuses, but there are only two animals who make hooks to catch food: humans and crows. Why we both do this is a mystery — and unraveling it could explain the reasons why tool use evolved in the first...

gizmodo.com

But none of the test subjects regarding animal consciousness are computers. Human genetics is pre-programming and much of what people do stems from their genes. Can you ascertain that Steve Jobs' whiz bang ideas were because of his genes? Do you know the capabilities of how our genes influence us?
"Also, when I say "consciousness", I literally mean "something that wasn't pre-programmed", and I actually do treat this topic as if ALL test subjects are "computers"."

 

[Somebody613]

snip

So what's YOUR suggestion?

 

[Birdjaguar]

So what's YOUR suggestion?

About what? My definition about consciousness is clear and fixed and takes no testing at all. Yours seems a bit muddled to me. First, it is pretty clear the science does not really know what consciousness is or where it comes from. It is a state that humans claim to possess and that some people think can be extended into other life forms. I see this thread as a way for people to express their ideas on the subject. And as in most threads here, folks start asking questions. Questions often help people clarify what they think.

I suggest that you think about the model you use regarding consciousness and what it means. This is a good place to refine your thinking because there are lots of very thoughtful people who can think through your ideas and ask more questions. I've seen that in action here for 20 years. Post more about your thoughts.