Ai Dreams Forum
Artificial Intelligence => General AI Discussion => Topic started by: HS on June 04, 2021, 04:38:09 am
-
Here's how I see them, and how they might build on each other:
I’m assuming that a sufficiently self-informed process can become self-aware. The idea is, once you get enough of the right type of interrelatedness happening in a system, that system will become mechanically/ energetically self-informed. Granted, there may be a necessary step between self-informed and self-aware, but I’m not convinced there has to be. It might be more of a complexity dependent spectrum. But this seems like the best candidate for what generates awareness/ experience, so I'm going with it, and I’ll see where it takes me.
Now that we have self-awareness, how can we create consciousness? I think the answer is, self-awareness plus time. A conscious process would need to be so interrelated as to continually remain informed of the actions of its constituent parts during a smudge of time, technically slightly in the past from an external perspective, which it would know as the present moment. The ‘’present’’ might be akin to the most recent/ least faded waves of sensory input/ activity in the nervous system. Then the fading echoes at the tail end of the smudge, might create a passive short-term memory. Comparing the echoes to the most recent waves, would inform the internal processes about trends in the external processes. This would enable them to notice and use time, giving an extra dimension to awareness, and creating something we might call consciousness.
How about free will then? Consciousness tends to go together with indecision. This seems like the effect of a divergent prediction mechanism, instead of a convergent one. An AGI might be paralyzed by the possibilities it could generate, given even slightly incomplete knowledge. It seems like it would need to pause to evaluate each possible future for probability and desirability. Then it would pick and work towards something in the ‘favorite most likely’ category. This looks to me like a, lets say, ‘higher order’ free will, which is achieved at larger scales/ complexities, despite the predictability of simple particles, through indecision followed by self-determinism.
-
Here's a diagram, in case its helpful:
(https://i.ibb.co/9GcmmCD/Consciousness.png) (https://ibb.co/fQqVVPg)
-
The last time I checked the literature there still wasn't a way to detect the presence of consciousness in others. That's why an anaesthetist is such an important member of a surgical team, there isn't a machine that can reliably keep you unconscious without the risk of killing you. I think of consciousness as the voice in my head which provides a running commentary on everything that I do... and think. That's right, consciousness isn't required for thinking. I know this because I solve a lot of problems by letting my subconscious work on them while I do other things.
So where does consciousness come from and what is its purpose? I think it is just the output from the language components in our brains. It is a part of the brain which is constantly constructing language around our actual thoughts and actions. In a normal person, there is another part of the brain which attempts to filter and shape that stream into something that's suitable for communication with others. Consciousness is an element of communication, not perception or thought.
-
Coincidentally, I do my system on a time ruler as well... I dont know how proliferated planning Ai like that is, its just a coincidence.
In mine the past is for "developing its model", and the future is for it "playing its model out".
Even the most perfect system I can think of using that, still has a robotic unchanging motivation, based apon simple metrics (like pain, hunger, tiredness) that I dont have any special developmental system for except for the fact it models it with the rest of the environment.
The robot is aware of these variables, but I wouldn't call it consciousness.
If it develops into complicated sentient behaviour just that simply I dont know for sure, Because getting to that stage would be really amazing and Id be a millionaire already, even if its only handling basic simple geometry, nothing abstract or complicated.
You can make Ai much before real consciousness and ur already really amazing, it already would be a very amazing machine.
Id say consciousness has got to deal with handling hidden variables, and more trickier concepts, and having less fixed parts to the robot, giving it more freedom of expression/development.
-
https://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-consciousness-as-the-ghost-in-the-machine-160688 (https://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-consciousness-as-the-ghost-in-the-machine-160688)
Beliefs about consciousness can be roughly divided into two camps. There are those who believe consciousness is like a ghost in the machinery of our brains, meriting special attention and study in its own right. And there are those, like us, who challenge this, pointing out that what we call consciousness is just another output generated backstage by our efficient neural machinery. Over the past 30 years, neuroscientific research has been gradually moving away from the first camp.
-
This is avoiding the issue, and denying the existence of experienced life.
Isn't it?
-
I think of consciousness as the voice in my head which provides a running commentary on everything that I do... and think.
We appear to be defining ‘consciousness’ in two different ways. I think it makes the most sense to just describe what concept/experience/mechanism I’m attempting to indicate with the word ‘consciousness’ instead of trying to agree on a definition.
I’m asking myself the question, “What does it take to be something? What are the required conditions for an internal perspective?”
Though I do have an idea of what you’re describing. I see that more like the voice of the top-down semantic net part of the brain, figuring out how to optimize the actions of, and the inputs to, the bottom-up physics engine part of the brain. That’s the sort of distinction I’d draw between the symbolic (descriptive) and non-symbolic (qualitative) processes of the mind. I wouldn’t call one conscious and the other unconscious (according to how I’m defining it), because it seems like both can exhibit/ coexist with consciousness.
So where does consciousness come from and what is its purpose?
In addition to my mechanistic description, I think consciousness is a way of filtering/interconnecting perception in such a way as to extract/create meaning.
It probably evolved out of necessity, for perception, and later for communication. Its purpose seems largely left up to us to determine.
Consciousness is an element of communication, not perception or thought.
Hmm… I still consider it a part of perception, though I do believe that consciousness probably evolved to a greater degree in humans because it helped with communication.
Coincidentally, I do my system on a time ruler as well... I dont know how proliferated planning Ai like that is, its just a coincidence.
Cause we time-ruler people know what’s up. The others might catch on eventually.
In mine the past is for "developing its model", and the future is for it "playing its model out".
Now that I think of it, I’d edit my diagram and wording slightly, and put ‘passive consciousness’ next to passive short-term memory. Then extend from that, what I'd call ‘active consciousness’ into the space of past experience, (memory), and the space of future possibility, (imagination).
This is avoiding the issue, and denying the existence of experienced life.
Isn't it?
It seems like we still harbor some disbelief about the fact that matter can have experience. That's why it may be personally and emotionally unsatisfying to take such a stance for some people.
-
No, what I meant was... of course it is a product of our neural nets, but this still doesn't tell us why it is.
Also, I have to mention that in French, "consciousness", "self-awareness", and "sentience" would all be translated to the same word "conscience". We do lack a precise vocabulary, no matter what's your mother tongue. In maths, a triangle is a triangle. In Ai, all these words we're using are very fuzzy in my opinion.
-
Agreed about not knowing why experience is created, and about the fuzzy vocabulary. In a way, this is the fun part, because we have a juicy mystery to solve. But we could eventually figure it out, and that may be when the real 'fun' begins. We will have to tread carefully and be ready for an adventure. O0
-
Why does it have to be conscious?
Non conscious Ai is more ethical. Bringing something into alive into reality causes problems your not thinking about yet.
Have a hard think what it would be like to just be able to switch something on or off that has feelings, and ram motors and batteries up its arse any time, and reprogram its intelligence against its will.
Something that's conscious has rights... but in this... none at all. Its very troubling to me. Maybe it is one of the fundamental flaws of our reality, being able to do it.
Maybe we aren't supposed to at all.
-
Something that's conscious has rights...
That' my guess too. Consciousness brings emotions into equation, and emotions are not to be played with. On the other hand, simulation of an emotion is not the same as feeling the emotion. To be able to construct someone who experiences emotions, we would be dealing with breathing in an artificial life, and we still don't have a technology to do that. Maybe exploring how the very first life sparked in on the Earth could help us reach that state. But if we decide to do it, we better not mess things up because bringing in a new kind of life would be very responsible position.
On the other side, even if the thing is not conscious, yet it's merely a machine or a simulation, and if the thing brings better decisions than we do (because it could be IQ 200 with super-ethical grounds), wouldn't it be dumb for us not to listen to its advices? Again the question of rights araises when ignoring the system advices could lead to potentially major harm for someone really alive. Imagine switching off something on whose decisions real lives may depend.
-
Why does it have to be conscious?
So that it may experience the world, and based on this understanding, decide what it would like to do. So that it can have the choice to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and have the choice to avoid their opposites.
Non conscious Ai is more ethical.
Non conscious AI is ethically non-applicable. One requires consciousness/experience to make something ethical or not ethical. Just simple experience like a salmon might have, could be considered less ethical than a highly developed consciousness, simply because it would be less able to communicate and act, so as to change its experience for the better. Humans might even consider a more conscious experience more important and interact with it according to the rights they have come up with.
-
Non conscious AI is ethically non-applicable.
It still is.
Theres many horrible things you can do if you have a hk 1 billion cleaning roomba, you could sick it on anyone you wanted, not just robbers.
But Like Ivan said, what if intelligence doesnt require consciousness?
But if it does, its a horrible situation not just for the robot for everyone, making a horrible mistake, Ai could be. Lots of horrible possibilities there.
Even if the robot is completely apathetic about everything, it may be just horrible having it there, poking around in its head, just imagine how horrifying it is, it could develop funny antics and gross you the hell out, doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
What if something goes wrong with its motivator? Like it star wars episode 3, (the first one) Seeing something getting attracted wrong to things and sticking a wooden spoon up its bum is not a pretty sight. Could go totally haywire.
Its a total dream if you get it... but it could be a NIGHTMARE.
-
Non conscious AI is ethically non-applicable.
It still is.
Theres many horrible things you can do if you have a hk 1 billion cleaning roomba, you could sick it on anyone you wanted, not just robbers.
It’s true that an unconscious AI could harm beings. Depending on the situation, the moral responsibility for those actions may partially be placed on its conscious creator, otherwise it could be considered bad luck. I’m just saying, at some point in the process there needs to be consciousness/experience for there to be ethics. If the whole world was made of unconscious/unexperiencing AI’s, ethics wouldn’t exist in that system.
If we plan to coexist with artificial intelligence, and consciousness is a unique type of understanding which we could potentially share with AI, wouldn’t it make for a safer arrangement to give AI this perception, so that it may avoid mistakes in how it relates to us, due to its ignorance regarding a fundamental aspect of our experience?
But Like Ivan said, what if intelligence doesnt require consciousness?
Logical operations don’t require consciousness. But creating something with no life seems pointless to me, unless you want to get something out of it. I'd like it to get something out of the universe. Sure, everyone will have their highs and lows, but since existence can be better than nothing, why not give AI a similar opportunity?
-
Logical operations don’t require consciousness. But creating something with no life seems pointless to me, unless you want to get something out of it. I'd like it to get something out of the universe. Sure, everyone will have their highs and lows, but since existence can be better than nothing, why not give AI a similar opportunity?
I'm the exact opposite to that, I think there is no point creating consciousness, and have a great want to automate still.
I do think tho, the one with the greatest non-conscious Ai, has the greatest chance of making a conscious one, but thats the problem for me.
-
I'm the exact opposite to that, I think there is no point creating consciousness, and have a great want to automate still.
I do think tho, the one with the greatest non-conscious Ai, has the greatest chance of making a conscious one, but thats the problem for me.
That's fair. Our different life experiences have led us to different conclusions. We see good in different places, but if we each create our own vision, I believe we may find it in more than one place as well.
-
I'm not sure why there are so many people who can't cope without believing they have The One True Answer (regardless of whether it bears any relation to reality or not: looking at you Religion), or those who feel they have to choose one "best" answer from a list of possibles and then stick with it. If reality (in the guise of the universe) has taught us anything it is that if something can happen it will happen, somehow, somewhere, somewhen. If life has taught us anything it is that diversity and adaptability are what count above all other things. If things can be created that think they're conscious, they'll be created. If things can be created that are intelligent, they'll be created too. Some of them might even be both.
-
I'm the exact opposite to that, I think there is no point creating consciousness, and have a great want to automate still.
I do think tho, the one with the greatest non-conscious Ai, has the greatest chance of making a conscious one, but thats the problem for me.
That's fair. Our different life experiences have led us to different conclusions. We see good in different places, but if we each create our own vision, I believe we may find it in more than one place as well.
One mans treasure is another mans travesty.
Men have died in duels because of it, but I choose not to decide for other people, personally, perhaps I was bullied into it, but it is correct, I think.
-
On the other side, even if the thing is not conscious, yet it's merely a machine or a simulation, and if the thing brings better decisions than we do (because it could be IQ 200 with super-ethical grounds), wouldn't it be dumb for us not to listen to its advices? Again the question of rights araises when ignoring the system advices could lead to potentially major harm for someone really alive. Imagine switching off something on whose decisions real lives may depend.
That reminded me of one of my favorite TV shows which explored similar concepts. Without giving any spoilers - I watched it a while ago, so the technology might not be up to date, but I remember it was quite a gripping drama / science fiction / mystery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYDWSNMTauQ
-
Theres many horrible things you can do if you have a hk 1 billion cleaning roomba, you could sick it on anyone you wanted, not just robbers.
But Like Ivan said, what if intelligence doesnt require consciousness?
But if it does, its a horrible situation not just for the robot for everyone, making a horrible mistake, Ai could be. Lots of horrible possibilities there.
Even if the robot is completely apathetic about everything, it may be just horrible having it there, poking around in its head, just imagine how horrifying it is, it could develop funny antics and gross you the hell out, doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
What if something goes wrong with its motivator? Like it star wars episode 3, (the first one) Seeing something getting attracted wrong to things and sticking a wooden spoon up its bum is not a pretty sight. Could go totally haywire.
Its a total dream if you get it... but it could be a NIGHTMARE.
If a robot is pointing a gun at my head, my chances are higher if the robot is able to hesitate, evaluate the consequences, question its own sense of justice. Horrible things tend to happen when humans act like programmed robots (eg, nazi "obeying orders") instead of thinking by themselves.
I think a conscious program would be a poor weapon controller, where on the other hand, a deep-learning capable automated slave would be perfect to kill people. This is the future of military ops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIk94MJS_Sc
one of my favorite TV shows
I love it. I have the whole series on DVD.
-
If a robot is pointing a gun at my head, my chances are higher if the robot is able to hesitate, evaluate the consequences, question its own sense of justice. Horrible things tend to happen when humans act like programmed robots (eg, nazi "obeying orders") instead of thinking by themselves.
I think a conscious program would be a poor weapon controller, where on the other hand, a deep-learning capable automated slave would be perfect to kill people. This is the future of military ops.
Yes I agree. The conscious robot is harder to control than the nonconscious robot, But what I was saying is its horrible even *making* something like that, when it can just be toyed with and played with by any random scientist wannabe in all orders of unethical ways.
-
Maybe there should exist some kind of regulated certificate if one wants to build an AI?
-
People could secretly torture their pets, but they usually don't.
-
Perhaps people are just not aware of potential responsibility when it comes to AI. Just like cars a hundred years ago. No rules, total anarchy, but the speeds were around 20 km/h. These days people drive up to 180 km/h, but they are able to do it because of accepted rules.
-
People could secretly torture their pets, but they usually don't.
I'm obsessing with the failures of life, cause I'm depressed.
-
Magnus you didn't say what failures of life you're obsessing with. It's hard not to think about our own past failures, especially as we get older and have more of them; the ones that bother me though are those of humanity as a whole. I wonder where the world is going and whether civilization will have to endure another reset before we can pass the torch to whoever or whatever might come next.
Here's something a bit weird to think about. Maybe it will help.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a36329671/is-the-universe-conscious/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a36329671/is-the-universe-conscious/)
-
THE FAILURES OF LIFE, by Magnus RC Wootton. (woot! woot! woot! woot!)
* being a pleasure based creature, we are killed by what we are attracted to.
* we are a kind of machine, and all machines break down eventually and malfunction.
* we are doomed to failure, if left to our own powers alone.
* we rely apon the deterministic nature of the universe to gain power and make sense of things, but then we are then inevitably bored by its unchanging nature, and start wishing for non-deterministic things.
* we wish to be original and needed not to be a fifth wheel, but then it only makes us feel lonely.
* if we were to create a living machine like ourselves, it would fall into the same doomed and depressive category as us.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn3euL8Tbfw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn3euL8Tbfw)
-
@ infurl @ MagnusWooton Umm... both the optimistic and pessimistic perspective have cheered me up. I will never understand my own brain....
I do like these types of videos, something to watch for later. :)
-
Just make sure, if you ever make a consciousness, give it respect, and dignity, cause its usually only gods job to do such a thing, if man is to do it, and enmass, its surely a disaster in my opinion.
Its alot safer to keep machine intelligence soulless, and it already is very fruitful and make us all millionaires and deflate the economy more than ever before.
-
https://bigthink.com/amp/epiphenomenalism-mind-body-problem-dualism-2654324827 (https://bigthink.com/amp/epiphenomenalism-mind-body-problem-dualism-2654324827)
What if you don't matter? What if all of your thoughts, precious feelings, great dreams, and terrible fears are completely, utterly, spectacularly irrelevant? Might it be that all of your mental life is just some pointless spectator, looking on as your body does the important stuff of keeping you alive and running about? What actually is the point of a thought? This is the view of "epiphenomenalism," and it might just be one of the most disturbing ideas in all of philosophy.
-
Here's my take on it.
For one thing, if consciousness had no effect on the physical world, then I believe he wouldn't have written this article.
But even if they are separate, does the proposed basis for consciousness not mattering check out? Is something important because it physically affects reality, or is it important because it's experientially affected by reality?
-
HS you could say that about any thing or religion, that they wrote it, so why would they if it was not true, every god must exist. Nope....Same with spirits and consciousness, we are just tin metal droids made of skin cells n stuff. Our communicationalisms is so juicy that we share a lot by text alone and seem more but we are just "communicating droids". Hi.
OpenAI.com alone is a good source of proof for how we work and how to build helpful AI. We can only use patterns to solve future problems. And solve = survive in life, we try to BE patterns too, life and survival equate to pattern/ immortality, and I excell at identifying this area. We form Earth in pattern too, square, etc, lined up homes, all is circular etc just look, this makes world predictive, group similar buildings together and time things together, we can walk blindfolded safely in the dark in the future, a cold 3D structure will form, a fractal, like a GPU. This is smart.
-
Here's my take on it.
For one thing, if consciousness had no effect on the physical world, then I believe he wouldn't have written this article.
But even if they are separate, does the proposed basis for consciousness not mattering check out? Is something important because it physically affects reality, or is it important because it's experientially affected by reality?
You could say consciousness is required for full awareness of itself and environment, and theres the clue here which is a very good one to believe in., and it does make a difference to have it or not have it. (To the environment.)
But on the other hand humans are often confused about who has the soul? do animals have souls, do plants have souls? then the outcome is mixed, we arent sure except for ourselves.
Maybe wed prefer to think that animals have souls, until we think of the fact how we eat them, then maybe wed prefer they dont, because of cruelty/morals? But maybe its true, you can have a "SOULED" response, and there be no soul, so then it doesnt make a difference!
-
we can walk blindfolded safely in the dark in the future, a cold 3D structure will form, a fractal, like a GPU. This is smart.
You can't beat a living creatures "mental map" of things, the computer is much worse at forming this structure artificially. Even with quite a powerful Ai. Ai is best off with cameras in all directions, instead of having to guess/match it.
-
We simply wouldn't exist/ function without consciousness.
Although our world perception/ semantic maps are grounded by our external envelope/ sensory reality, our understanding/ filtering of that information is grounded by our consciousness.
It's akin to an index system that selects relevant knowledge aligned to the task/ thought from our chaotic sub-conscious, its a symbiotic/ feedback that provides the application/ focus required to constrain our thought process.
Consciousness, attention, self-awareness, lucidity, volition, perception, etc are all basically the same thing... they all stem from the same modality.
My AGI wouldn't function without it's own machine equivalent of consciousness.
:)
-
We simply wouldn't exist/ function without consciousness.
Although our world perception/ semantic maps are grounded by our external envelope/ sensory reality, our understanding/ filtering of that information is grounded by our consciousness.
It's akin to an index system that selects relevant knowledge aligned to the task/ thought from our chaotic sub-conscious, its a symbiotic/ feedback that provides the application/ focus required to constrain our thought process.
My AGI wouldn't function without it's own machine equivalent of consciousness.
:)
Maybe we wouldnt be as adaptive, Its a matter of belief I guess, but I think 99% of function works without consciousness.
Are u sure your robot will be conscious? Im doubtful about my creation.
Just think how much having an Ai being conscious is a huge moral dillemma. It would be subject to infinite tortures on behalf of people that havent anywhere near the responsability it would take, to "take care and nurture" something like this.
Its inevitable I guess that the wrong ppl take the helm of a "conscious intelligence" But Ill never be happy about it, for all the rest of my existance.
Life sucks.
-
I usually try to avoid the word consciousness... hence my compromise... machine consciousness.
Its just a modality/ mechanism that evolves/ emerges within my simulations... it's NOT human consciousness, though it does fulfil the same functionality within the bounds of the simulation.
I'll have to think of a better description/ term and avoid the C word altogether... perhaps 'task specific focus'... or 'task volition'... the problem is I have to relate to C at some level in order for people to understand my descriptions/ research.
:)
-
The notion of dualism between mind and body comes from a religious perspective to explain an afterlife which of course solves the problem of death. However, we, humanity, are a form of biology, and mind and body are one and the same! Cultural perspectives are not unique to humans but humans are the most sophisticated at it. Too many experts think their free will is what is controlling the brain but that's not true. Awareness in the context of realizing a thought or being an impression from some stimuli serves the biology of man in that it allows for the ability to communicate experiences and solicit other members to solve problems. Where ants use pheromones humans use vocalizations that communicate such experiences or ideas to modify brain chemistries of other hominids, and obviously more recently written language has been used to do the same. So, to answer the question that Epiphenomenalism asks: "What purpose does consciousness serve?" It provides a mechanism of empathic anthropomorphic communications that glues its society together. Remember the movie "Castaway" (https://college.cengage.com/psychology/resources/students/screen/screen_20010809.html#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20lot%20of,%2C%20creativity%E2%80%94and%20developmental%20issues.&text=Shortly%20after%20awakening%20on%20the,the%20clothes%20on%20his%20back.)? In it Tom Hank's character develops a relationship with a basketball, literally turning it into a persona! Our evolution has placed such a high priority on socialization that even if we find ourselves isolated we create a pseudo society to bear the isolation. We are wired to form societies and consciousness is the crux that keeps us together...
-
I'm pretty sure that I agree with you on this. What we regard as our consciousness is actually a narrative of what our subconscious mind has already done or decided to do, which comes after the fact. It plays no role in what we actually do. The role that it does play is encoding our internal state for the purpose of communication with others, for influencing the actions of others. In programming terms, it is the process that encodes or serializes (part of) the data representing our mental state for communication with others. I suspect that storing and recalling this narrative doesn't actually influence our future actions either. When we recall something it is just the processes of the subconscious mind being projected afresh.
-
It provides a mechanism of empathic anthropomorphic communications that glues its society together.
I disagree; it’s the chicken/ egg. Societal communication/ language are a product of consciousness.
It plays no role in what we actually do.
Consider a complex decision which results in an error.
What realises the error, it can’t be your prior learning/ sub conscious because it provided the initial solution… this is the role consciousness plays.
Although our consciousness can only make decisions based on prior experience/ sub conscious (you can’t apply what you don’t know) knowledge/ experience/ memories are stored relative to our conscious state/ awareness not just our sensory envelope.
Consciousness filters knowledge for application and stores knowledge relative to an application.
It's a continuum, technically there is no hard boarder between conscious/ sub-conscious.
:)
-
I disagree; it’s the chicken/ egg. Societal communication/ language are a product of consciousness.
The statement is referring to the reason there is an awareness of internal states and the impetus to use language, not the functional circuitry that processes language. To be specific I am calling awareness consciousness and what most call the unconscious are neural circuits that create cognitive abilities that collectively emerge awareness.
-
If we werent conscious, wed be aware of less of the situation, and wed be less adaptive, so u could think.
-
If we werent conscious, wed be aware of less of the situation, and wed be less adaptive, so u could think.
Well, no, the degree of awareness is directly proportional to cognitive abilities. So we could gauge or grade consciousness (awareness) to what cognitive capabilities an animal or person has. This can explain machine consciousness, animal consciousness, as well those with mental disabilities, and even cultural perspective consciousness that emphasize certain kinds of thinking or skills.
-
In terms of some definition of "Awareness": It is an ability to realize any internal states with an intent of self-interest for the organism or even machine, effectively awareness battles entropy. This is soo generic that perhaps even DNA could have a form of awareness, and even some programs that implement error trapping to prevent them from crashing would qualify!
-
In terms of some definition of "Awareness": It is an ability to realize any internal states with an intent of self-interest for the organism or even machine, effectively awareness battles entropy. This is soo generic that perhaps even DNA could have a form of awareness, and even some programs that implement error trapping to prevent them from crashing would qualify!
Yeah, I had a similar thought. It's as if evolution and resultant life processes are somehow powered by entropy. Like a sailboat which has figured out how to tack against the prevailing wind.
-
If we werent conscious, wed be aware of less of the situation, and wed be less adaptive, so u could think.
Well, no, the degree of awareness is directly proportional to cognitive abilities. So we could gauge or grade consciousness (awareness) to what cognitive capabilities an animal or person has. This can explain machine consciousness, animal consciousness, as well those with mental disabilities, and even cultural perspective consciousness that emphasize certain kinds of thinking or skills.
Since weve never seen a person that hasnt got a soul yet. (Or so I guess) We actually dont what type of "unawareness" this would cause, Im just saying it could be likely there is some. :2funny:
-
you could have a ai system have awareness by timing how long it has been since a particular spoke to it then respond accordingly.
and also you could have that ai system have awareness time how long anyone has talked to it then respond accordingly.
and also you could have that ai system have awareness by timing how long it takes you to respond during
a conversation then respond are you there.
and also you could have that ai system have awareness by thinking
about it's output.
by making it's output go into it's
input then putting the result into a database to formulate a response.
gpt 3 or gpt 2 could be made to do this.
this ai system uses text like a chatbot.
i know i am speculating.
-
Yes to add an "awareness" one needs to add the functionality for that specific awareness.
But true consciousness seems to be awareness of everything, in one unified mechanism maybe.
But I spose that mechanism is fixed? The god mechanism! :D
-
you do not have to have eyes or ears to be aware.
-
Well, one thing for sure, we all need a working definition for Awareness and Consciousness. Early on, I pondered this for a long time aggravated by how ambiguous the term has become over time. It's one of those meta-words that has come to embody a slew of concepts. The only rational approach to dealing with it that I can see is to focus on what consciousness does or its purpose. I read some place a statement that claimed, "the brain operates primarily by veto." An unconscious person or a person who is asleep seems to support this notion and one would expect that without it being that way, a state of chaos would exist - kin to epilepsy.
Now, it seems that the brain can be both consciously and unconsciously aware of something and this implies that consciousness is a subdivision or subset of awareness. Since we can only thinking of one thing at a time or perceive one thing at a time, consciousness is serial and I believe this is due to attention and focus. We can be aware of things going on outside of what we are conscious of and that is generally seen as a distraction. So, I have adopted a definition that Consciousness is that part of awareness that is in focus and being attended too. Furthermore, as to its purpose. responses generally require some timing considerations and therefore, its purpose is to release the chosen response from its inhibited state. The simple example would be when to swing a bat to hit a ball.
All this subjective stuff, be it an experience of qualia or emotion originate peripherally to consciousness and our taking notice of their existence is relative to a variety of other mental influences, not the least of which is intensity. The subjective stuff are interpretations assigned to experiences that may then interact secondarily with our physiology to arouse and provide an additional dimension of meaning to the experience usually over an alternate modal pathway. The blush, nausea, pain, and tremors initiated by the emergence of an emotional reaction come after the fact - secondary responses that feed back to consciousness through awareness. Awareness is the input buffer from our sensory modalities and consciousness is just the part in focus and being attended too.
-
Yes I agree. To me if consciousness had a purpose (But I think its not what reality in a spiritual sense is.) It would be to make it more aware of its situation in life, for the creature at hand.
Then u would get functionality improvements from it, at the cost of opening Pandoras gates!! Which I keep stressing that making living A.I. is a nightmare a person like a vegen would reject out of their lives completely!!
I wish we werent even here, alot of the time, But When I'm finally dead I'll get my wish.
-
I also lean towards the "nuts and bolts" view of consciousness and certainly don't ascribe anything metaphysical to it. I thought the following video did a great job explaining what appears to be the nature and origins of consciousness. I'm sure I've posted this here before, maybe even earlier in this thread, but I don't remember where because it must have been a while ago. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8)
-
Why is awareness & consciousness of our actions talked about - in combination with - superhero/terrorism advertised round the clock on TV and movies?
That's the answer...
-
Why is awareness & consciousness of our actions talked about - in combination with - superhero/terrorism advertised round the clock on TV and movies?
That's the answer...
Fear of the Unknown. Fear is the dominant emotion and applied by default to novel experiences that we have not had before. It's an evolutionary survival thing that has spread throughout the species by virtue of those who have survived long enough to reproduce.