[Freddy]

Cool, I am glad you got a reply   Those are some pretty heavy questions, best of luck answering them !

[TrueAndroids]

Well, I sent a response to Raul on my preliminary thoughts on some of  his questions. Here it is; comments and criticisms always welcome.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your feedback Raul! You given me a lot to think about and work on, and that could take some time.  

Some preliminary thoughts on your questions:

Well, the first (and big) question would be:

- Is your prototype able to pass the Turing Test?

No, not even close. It has just the bare beginnings of a true (semantic), reason oriented understanding of its world. But to have this real understanding (not a simulation or syntactic trick) is to have at least a glimmer of human-like consciousness.

Saying your machine is conscious is a really big claim. So you would need quite a strong evidence in order to support that claim.

The evidence is wholly the application of the theory stated above. The evidence that the machine is doing what the theory calls for - semantic deductive thinking - is clear in the demo. No more evidence is needed given the theory: If the theory is true then the conclusion is true because the evidence of the machine doing what the theory calls for is clearly true.

But is the Turing Test really proof that a machine is conscious? Is it a necessity that if a machine fails to pass the Turing Test it can't be conscious? I think not in that it could be a very clever syntactic simulation (as Searle in his Chinese Room shows) yet have zero understanding of the syntactic squiggle inputs and outputs - zero consciousness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Freddy]

Really makes you think that passing the Turing Test is nothing more than a parlour trick doesn't it ?

[one]

Probably could use a good dose of 'Neural Linguistic Programming' "NLP" instead of bleeding the tech to rouge countries Bla Bla Miss you *Contreversy* *Friendly insullts* and my Boot in your As*

BBsoon - J

[one]

Sorry but, "Saying your machine is conscious is a really big claim. So you would need quite a strong evidence in order to support that claim. " - 'Coincidence is Gods way of staying anonymous' , - and if it weren't for God we would not have the Atheists to talk about.

[NoLongerActive]

@TrueAndroids - Congrats on the reply. He really set forth some good questions. I do not agree on his perception or indication maybe that the Turing Test would be proof that a machine is conscious. I think I even read on CNN not too long ago how the Turing Test had some overall potential flaws. The Turing Test is passed if a *human perceives* the computer as another human. Human perception is not fact. So there is no way the Turing Test could prove for a fact that a machine is conscious.

He did bring up the question of self-awareness, which I too think for a machine to be "conscious" or a "true AI" it would have some semblance of self-awareness; the ability to recognize it is alive, living, functioning, working, knowing it is doing what it is doing and knowing who (or what) it is. (ALL of these factors.) I think evidence of self-awareness would be the indicator of consciousness. But, like the Touring Test, there is currently no real way to test a machine for self-awareness other than human perception. A computer can say "I know I exist." but the human reading it might perceive it as a pre-programmed response or a learned response, and not an actual revelation of the machine itself.

In our research into AI (or anything for that matter), we must always be careful of human perception because it is not a dependable way to show fact. Humans are too fallible.
 

[TrueAndroids]

Some believe that if we can make a machine conscious like we are, then there must be deduced the conclusion that we are machines. But this does not automatically follow. We can build artificial hearts and limbs etc. but this does not mean that we are machines, and the same is true for artificial consciousness. There is a "spark of human life" that is beyond consciousness to which consciousness is not much more then the heart to it. The ironic thing is that it seems that a  lot of people who are actually trying to create artificial humans with artificial consciousness etc. realize that there is a certain line we can't cross and that the human being is a most amazing, improbable creation that only creates a greater respect for human life. As I described it, it's "oddly elegant to the extreme".

As you've seen I've implemented my artificial thinking (cognitive consciousness) pseudo-code in machinery. And this gives me confidence that the rest of my artificial human (android) pseudo-code will also be readily implemented. Now I have pseudo-code for a machine self, machine perceptual, cognitive, and emotional consciousness, machine prime purpose, machine creativity (planning and acting for effects), machine self-awareness, and machine self autonomy (from morning when it wakes to evening when it sleeps). But there are two things I can't duplicate: an entity that feels pain and an entity that can do what any 3 year old can do: tell which one is his personal favorite choice between vanilla or chocolate ice cream or etc.. This spark of human life whether it is an attribute of a God created spirit or otherwise is the difference and will always be the difference between a human created silk flower and a real flower (metaphorically speaking).

[TrueAndroids]

@TikaC  and Freddy, I agree with you both about the Turing Test. An IBM Big Blue could maybe someday cause a human to declare it is a human, and that would indeed be extremely clever and something I can't do  , but as you say, that does not make for a good reason to say it has human consciousness. In the end I guess we will need a generally accepted human consciousness theorem, and then see it implemented in a machine, maybe by actually looking at its insides - its code - to make sure that is what it is doing.

[TrueAndroids]

@TikaC  and Freddy, I agree with you both about the Turing Test. An IBM Big Blue could maybe someday cause a human to declare it is a human, and that would indeed be extremely clever and something I can't do  , but as you say, that does not make for a good reason to say it has human consciousness. In the end I guess we will need a generally accepted human consciousness theorem, and then see it implemented in a machine, and testing this by actually looking at its insides - its code - to make sure that is what it is doing.

Interesting related article:

ARE ROBOTS ALIVE?
Analysis by Robert Lamb | Thu Apr 8, 2010 Discovery News Site
http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-robots-alive.html

Here it seems we have the exact same problem when it comes to recognizing artificial human life. What does human life mean? An IBM Big Blue causes a human to declare it is a human. It passes the Turing test. Does this make for a good reason for declaring that it is (human-like) alive? We have the same problem, and the same way out. In the end I will need a generally accepted human life theory in pseudo-code, and then have it implemented in a machine, and test this by actually looking at its insides - its code - to make sure that is what it is doing. If these two conditions are met, then we can collectively conclude: "It's alive!" ala Dr. Frankenstein.

[TrueAndroids]

My next response to Raul's questions (see earlier):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Do you think your prototype generates or sustains any phenomenal states at all?

I think most researchers would agree on the idea that having a program executing deductive logic rules won't take you any closer to the problem of phenomenal consciousness. Therefore, I think you might be trying to overcome this issue by adding the notion of meaning (semantics). So, if you're claiming that your machine is phenomenally conscious, how are the mechanisms for semantics giving place to phenomenal states in your machine?

No, I'm just saying that it's consciously thinking just as humans, via semantic, deductive reasoning. This phenomenon is generally accepted as access consciousness, which for some is not the "hard problem" of phenomenal consciousness. This might be called the easy problem, but I've not yet seen anyone demonstrate true access consciousness (not just a syntactic simulation) which requires fusing semantic components with human reasoning as I have done. So I believe I'm the first to create a conscious machine, even if it is "just" the easy problem of access consciousness.

Phenomenal consciousness involves not thoughts in memories and in action, it is "simply experience; it is moving, colored forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the center." (Wikipedia) So it centers around robotic sensations and their impact on the 'center' or machine self of the artificial life form. So it is outside the function of a consciously thinking machine, such as is my demo.

Common Reference Point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TrueAndroids]

Next response to Raul's questions ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In addition to the Turing Test, it would be interesting (at least for me ) to see how your prototype would be rated using ConsScale. Please, have a look to www.ConsScale.com, and use the available calculator."

Your ConsScale is very comprehensive, and a real advance in AI!

Using ConsScale for me was like going down memory lane to my "android system" provisional patent I filed in 2006, of which the deductive reasoning prototype is one component. Most of your identified cognitive skills are implemented in this complete Alldroid Android System.

I have differing names but the cognitive skill is the same. I have pseudo-code for a machine self, machine perceptual (phenomenal), conceptual (access), and emotional consciousness, machine prime purpose (ala William James), machine creativity (planning and acting for effects), machine self-consciousness, and machine self autonomy (from morning when it wakes to evening when it sleeps recharge/maintenance).

I've since decided to go the open source route with this pseudo code invention for a complete autonomous android. I've implemented the semantic, deductive reasoning part, that gives the android access consciousness. Thus I believe the rest of the pseudo code for the Alldroid android system will be readily implemented.

Obviously I'm not an expert or even proficient yet in your ConsScale, but as an inventor I must say I have been down those exact roads, trying to build all those same functions, so it rings very true for me. Well done Raul!

Common Reference Points:
http://www.consscale.com/levels.html
http://www.consscale.com/level_tables.html#table2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Freddy]

Still reading here... I have to admit that a lot of this is going above my head but it is still interesting to read.  It will be nice to see his response.

[TrueAndroids]

Thanks Freddy. Continuing with Raul's questions ...

"- Is your prototype able to develop a sense of self?

Selfconsciousness is one of the biggest features of human consciousness. Does your theory account for the development of such a sense?"

Yes, self-consciousness is a matter of adding a database to the code you see running. Then I simply need to give it a dictionary that includes the concept "me" which can also be "I" when coming from the android itself, and could be "you" or "alldroid" when it comes from its environment. And then its just a matter of loading its concept of self ("me"/"I") with various predicates such as: I am Alldroid. I am a android. I am an artificial human life form. I am a CPU. I am a machine. I was born on x. etc etc

Self-consciousness is a variety of consciousness: One can be conscious of oneself or of other things. In both cases the conscious functioning (semantic, conceptual reasoning) must come first, before it can be directed to discourse on one subject (say itself) or on any other subject. However, once this conscious function is built as shown in my demo, it is fairly easy to then add the memory capability (database), and have it start learning, and thinking about the subject of self or "I" and remember what it knows about itself = "me" = "I" = "Alldroid"

[TrueAndroids]

continuing with questions from Raul ...

"I think the key question, that still prevents me to fully understand your project is the notion of meaning that you are using. Could you please clarify that? For instance, taking a evulotionalty standpoint, I can think of meaning without thinking of emotions. Does you theory account for emotions as well?"

"Meaning' is a broad term that can encompass any aspect of the potential for cognitive or emotive impact of speech on interlocutors. However in linguistic semantics these days the cognitive aspects are the center of focus. ... Our attention will be directed toward what is called 'formal semantics', which is the adaptation to natural language of analytical techniques from logic." https://www.msu.edu/~abbottb/formal.htm

This is my view on meaning. I'm isolating just the cognitive meaning, not the emotive meaning of speech / discourse. That is another problem - the problem of affective (emotional) consciousness, which I have other pseudo code for, but that will have to wait for another day.


"The semantics of logic refers to the approaches that logicians have introduced to understand and determine that part of meaning in which they are interested; the logician traditionally is not interested in the sentence as uttered but in the proposition, an idealised sentence suitable for logical manipulation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_semantics

Here, the specific proposition I begin with is the categorical proposition, including singular propositions. Since any elementary sentence using any verb can be converted into a categorical sentence this is a useful place to start. And from the truth-values of a preliminary set of these, the truth-values of a host of other propositions can be unequivocally, deductively assigned. So it is a good place to start a search for machine consciousness. And as shown above the task is to identify the "parts of meaning" or semantic parts, that allow the machine and humans to understand them, and then to reason with this understanding (meaning). These semantic parts then become the "semantic components of computing" as required for semantic programming, and coupling them with reasoning functions (and memories?) makes for machine consciousness.

The clearest description of the difference between a syntactics based machine and a semantics based machine is shown by Searle's Chinese Room. The syntactic machine may cleverly process syntactic squiggles, and output syntactic symbols that fool the human operator, but it clearly has zero understanding of what the syntactic squiggles mean; it has therefore zero cognitive consciousness.

[TrueAndroids]

Well, Raul ( http://conscious-robots.com/raul/ )said he would consider my responses for a time and respond soon with his opinions on my Conscious Machine Prototype, Alldroid.
----------------------------------------
My Summation.

That would be great Raul. It seems I have run right into the "No Phenomenology No Consciousness" proposition of Igor Aleksander, with my assertion of "Consciousness because of Semantic Human Thinking."

My basic evidence is a series of questions I asked myself: If I lost my leg could I still be conscious? Yes. If I lost legs and arms? Yes. If I lost eyes? Yes. If I lost seeing, hearing, smell, taste, and touch? Yes. I could still be in my brain semantically thinking about things, i.e. I could still be conscious.

From this evidence, I concluded that:

If mechanical semantic human thinking (elementary deductive reasoning we all do, and can be seen in brain scans) is created, then machine consciousness has been created, in other words, the machine would be conscious just as myself, in the situation described above. I then built the prototype implementing (1) semantic (2) human thinking, and so I conclude from the principle that I've built a conscious machine.

I suppose this is the central, essential point, and where I differ with some other Machine Consciousness researchers/inventors.

Common Reference Points:

http://www.conscious-robots.com/en/publications/papers/apa-newsletter-phenomenal-machine-consciou.html

where is found:

Essential Phenomenology for Conscious Machines: A Note on Franklin, Baars and Ramamurthy: "A Phenomenally Conscious Robot"
Igor Aleksander

Slippery Steps Towards Phenomenally Conscious Robots
Pentti O.A. Haikonen
-----------------------------------

For those who are interested in this new, wide spread, ever growing field of Machine Consciousness, with researchers and University departments in every country, here's a good resource:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Machine_consciousness