User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 13 of 13

  1. #11
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    But something about the Turing test does bother me. It's a good 'rule of thumb' test and it is probably the best we have. There is this eternal gulf between knowing that I know what pain feels like, and thinking that you know what pain feels like. But there is no way for me to know that you experience pain in actuality. I know you could trick people, depending on their abilities and the circumstances with forms of the Turing test using todays technology. But this doesn't mean that the chatbot you tricked them with is conscious. Hell, there are people who (I assume) are conscious and couldn't pass the Turing test.
    I guess I'm just wondering what the difference is between acting like you're feeling pain and feeling pain. If I were to program a bot that I wanted to fool people into thinking it felt pain, I would make it disoriented during pain, I would make it avoid things that cause pain, I would make it express outwardly that it was damaged, etc. How do I know I'm not a bot with that exact programming? What would it be like to have that programming? I think of consciousness as "what it's like to have the programming a human has". In this sense, if we were to succeed in modeling a human, we would by definition succeed in creating consciousness.

    I don't think I can go much further here; I think I've expressed my views. Good thread!

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    Define consciousness. What do you believe consciousness is, and how it works? Do you think it's a process that can be recreated mechanically? Let's talk about this stuff.
    I dont think it can be reproduced mechanically, I believe people will try and I remember reading about and seeing on the TV stories about a UK mathematician who was a genius and studied in particular altruism, he had for a long time been the Dawkins of his day, until when hypothesising about how AI could be created by humans he realised that human beings and human consciousness was the very sort of autonomous intelligence he was theorising about, he then decided that there had to be a creator and that he had been denying this for years.

    Its a sad story because he lost his mind, I think becoming homeless, destitute, derelict and desperate, describing that the "Hound of Heaven" was on his heels, which refers to a poem about heaven not being denied, before finally taking his own life.

    Consciousness fascinates me too, I know that there are lots of neuro-psychologists and philosophers who will seize things like optical illusions or sensory overload, the bicameral mind theories etc. to insist on their own ideas that we're all as good as great apes (which is one giant leap from Darwin's actual position that we had a common ancestor or origin), creatures of habit, responding to genetic and bio-chemical imperatives. This kind of thing underestimates the extent to which there's A LOT that hasnt been explained and is inexplicable about consciousness.

    Things like Karen Armstrong's writing about the so called great transformation, when simultaneously, globally there was an emergence of spiritual leaps in consciousness, Jesus, Buddha etc. intrigue me, while I know it has its problems things such as cognitive resonance are amazing and observed fact, how do monkey's within the same species range but living seperate existences on neighbouring islands spontaneously develop the same innovative use of tools or behaviours like that when others do without direct observation of the behaviour?

    I'm also interested, possibly more so, in false consciousness or states of denial and repression, when the facts dont fit but people maintain beliefs or attribute diminished importance to or relativise to certain beliefs. In evidence where different cultural back drops are apparent.
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

  3. #13
    Senior Member Munchies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    OMG sx


    since the microcosm and macrocosm expands infinitly, it basicaly comes down to everythign revolving around center forces of mass. It's hard to then define matter as something objective after knowing this.Conciousness is behind matter, it directs matter
    1+1=3 OMFG

Similar Threads

  1. What is truth (split from post poll)
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 09:47 AM
  2. What is Philosophy?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 09:10 PM
  3. What is the most, and the least, brand-conscious personality type?
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 09:36 PM
  4. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  5. Just what is on your desk?
    By disregard in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 08:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO