Ai Dreams Forum
Artificial Intelligence => General AI Discussion => Topic started by: yotamarker on December 11, 2021, 12:57:38 am
-
as we see in the invincible series, another take on non-homologous imprinting
a brain data is transferred into another body leaving 2 copies as such :
1 has regular continuity memory
2 has the same memory as the original except waking up in a different bed and body
the sense of continuity comes from the memory.
if subject 2 had gotten false memories of being son-goku he would have had a sense of self of goku
and even expect to have his super powers.
due to a lack of such tech ATM we need to discuss is there such a thing as a soul ? if so what does it do ?
can it explain why ppl do not have memories from before age about 3yo ?
or are we simply copies made by time, completely separate from our past self ?
-
It's more than memories, we naturally use different parts of the brain and store different things in them.
The real theory behind astrology is that you're born using particular parts of the brain for particular things (one area for home-based things, another for sport, another for work production, success, relaxing.. etc). Memories go into those areas, and so during the year as planets move, areas of the mind are highlighted, you become better/worse at different things (different to other people).
In that theory.. if you transplanted memory from one brain into another (same location). Eg. A list of tools. The receiving person may already be using that part of the brain for homely things, and would therefore associate tools with homeliness, and sleep in the shed. If they can't then they may have a nervous breakdown...
Someone who has lost their memories due to electro shock treatment/ECT would still have their personality underneath if there are enough links. IMO.
-
I think even if you did make it conscious - that would mean god is in the robot as well. and it doesnt make sense.
It means the robot can actually be possessed by daemons, like we can.
-
It can only be a matter of time before flat-earthers start posting on this forum. ^-^
-
on theory says
we are uploaded into a body inside the matrix at the age we "start to form memories"
but even within this theory one has to take under account the influence of the time dimension
unless time works different there. but really, how different could it be ?!
-
Possible reasons why we don't remember our early lives include 1) the brain structures that store memories are not yet fully developed and 2) at a young age we learn rapidly and therefore the forgetting process also operates more aggressively. This does NOT mean that fetuses/neonates/infants/toddlers aren't conscious. You can have conscious experience of an event without remembering it.
Theories that designate any human being as non-conscious without solid grounds for doing so are very dangerous -- because, if they are in fact conscious, it can lead to inhumane treatment. For example, some doctors used to do surgery on infants without analgesics because it was assumed that they couldn't feel pain. And nobody ever reported on the horror of this experience because they couldn't remember it. But in light of later scientific evidence (https://time.com/3827167/this-is-a-babys-brain-on-pain/), it seems likely that infants DO register pain and these surgeries were probably terrible for them in the moment.
As for the time thing ... a human being is a system. A system retains its systemic identity even if parts change or are lost and replaced over time. This thinking can be applied to everything from cars to corporations, so why not humans as well? (Of course you can argue about this, you can claim that any change means it's no longer the same system, but that is not my opinion.) If you are thinking of all parts of the time dimension as existing at once, then one could imagine a human organism as a single object that extends through the time dimension from t0 to t1, rather than a series of discrete copies. Because why should there be breaks in time that would separate one copy from another?
-
You can have conscious experience of an event without remembering it.
I can't see consciousness without, at least short-term memory. A part of consciousness is self-reflection, as to, what I am I doing, and what will I do next, so some kind of memory is required. Now, that doesn't mean one can't forget the episodic events which is a completely different process of developing longer-term memories. But in the process of being conscious short-term memory is essential.
-
if I could somehow see hear smell taste touch via other ppls senses,
do we share the same consciousness ?
-
if I could somehow see hear smell taste touch via other ppls senses, AND control their bodies
do we share the same consciousness ?
-
I can't see consciousness without, at least short-term memory. A part of consciousness is self-reflection, as to, what I am I doing, and what will I do next, so some kind of memory is required. Now, that doesn't mean one can't forget the episodic events which is a completely different process of developing longer-term memories. But in the process of being conscious short-term memory is essential.
This might be term confusion again. I'm talking about phenomenal consciousness, which is what I assumed yotamarker was talking about. Phenomenal consciousness is subjective experience consisting of qualia. I believe it would be possible to have this without having any distinct thoughts at all -- just a pure internal sensation of something. Self-reflection is part of what I call "self-awareness," which is a different function that is not at all synonymous with subjective experience, though they might be related in some way.
if I could somehow see hear smell taste touch via other ppls senses, AND control their bodies
do we share the same consciousness ?
I wouldn't say so; that's just hooking up someone else's IO to your brain. If you could do something like the Vulcan mind-meld then that would probably qualify as a shared consciousness.
-
This might be term confusion again. I'm talking about phenomenal consciousness, which is what I assumed yotamarker was talking about. Phenomenal consciousness is subjective experience consisting of qualia. I believe it would be possible to have this without having any distinct thoughts at all -- just a pure internal sensation of something. Self-reflection is part of what I call "self-awareness," which is a different function that is not at all synonymous with subjective experience, though they might be related in some way.
The experience of qualia could not be fully explained without the property or component of time. We experience our feelings with respect to time. Time gives the qualia a depth of persistence and therefore a component of its degree or revalence. If pain lasts a long time it's worse than a fast pinprick or the experience of delicious food is not so interesting when it's very short-lived. So time is a critical component for qualia. So I disagree with the assertions of Phenomenal Consciousness of qualia without a component of time.
-
I'm sure the perception of time does color the experience, but I don't see why that would make the experience impossible without it.
In any case, what I was getting at is that I believe you can feel (for example) pain without thinking self-reflectively about it and being able to say "I am feeling pain" to yourself.
-
A computer with a memory is not conscious by itself.
consciousness has an extra property attached that even a perfect machine copy of a person wont have in my mind, to make something conscious opens up the gates of hell, I don't know why you are so attracted to it.
-
You know I seriously thought about renaming this forum to AiFringe but decided against it because it isn't weird enough yet.
-
You know I seriously thought about renaming this forum to AiFringe but decided against it because it isn't weird enough yet.
well I would argue you should add a whole forum for the living grimoire AGI software design pattern but there is this site :
https://jizz.is/
-
currently we are translating it into python :
https://jizz.is/threads/chiis-python-suit-scrum.7/
-
I'm sure the perception of time does color the experience, but I don't see why that would make the experience impossible without it.
In any case, what I was getting at is that I believe you can feel (for example) pain without thinking self-reflectively about it and being able to say "I am feeling pain" to yourself.
But you know what part of your body the pain came from, so there is self-reflection. Self-reflection is where you realize a thought, it doesn't have to translate into words.
-
When I try to imagine the state I'm talking about here, the thing that comes to mind is a fever dream -- in which I'm extremely uncomfortable, but my higher reasoning is so submerged that I can't process or think about the discomfort. In that case I probably don't know which part of my body it's in, at least not clearly.
-
When I try to imagine the state I'm talking about here, the thing that comes to mind is a fever dream -- in which I'm extremely uncomfortable, but my higher reasoning is so submerged that I can't process or think about the discomfort. In that case I probably don't know which part of my body it's in, at least not clearly.
That sounds more like not being fully awake where cortical areas are still in a dream state, at best what you describe is not being fully conscious to the extent of your brain's cognitive abilities. But I would not call that a state of consciousness, more like a state of booting up. Granted that neural circuits can operate without awareness, but that's not consciousness, since neural circuits create the state of consciousness where consciousness is not aware of those circuits, so, yes a neural circuit can operate independently of other circuits. With that said, what you describe, the sense or state of qualia isn't interpreted, albeit, the neural signaling of such qualia can be there that activates circuits, but the sense of its quality is not cognitively recognized as a state of avoidance or reward. So, it's subconscious, meaning it's neurally processed to some degree but not a form of consciousness, more like a robotic reflex.
-
So, it's subconscious, meaning it's neurally processed to some degree but not a form of consciousness, more like a robotic reflex.
Given that I am in fact suffering in the state I describe, I would say that's far more than a robotic reflex. A reflex is an action/behavior. I'm talking about an experience.
Edit: I would agree that it might be "subconscious" in the same sense that dream states generally are. However, dream states are experienced and therefore still entail phenomenal consciousness.
-
Given that I am in fact suffering in the state I describe, I would say that's far more than a robotic reflex. A reflex is an action/behavior. I'm talking about an experience.
Edit: I would agree that it might be "subconscious" in the same sense that dream states generally are. However, dream states are experienced and therefore still entail phenomenal consciousness.
The term reflex was used to describe the process as independent neural processing that does not integrate into consciousness and while biologically it is an experience in terms of cells doing something it is not a conscious state. Most dreams are not remembered since the Hippocampus is shut down while sleeping, however, there are exceptions where the Hippocampus is active and an individual can remember the dream. Only when short-term memory is active is the dream an experience, furthering my assertion that the perception of qualia still requires memory and a sense of time.
Edit: The need to have the Hippocampus for a dream to be an experience is the need to separate events chronologically. This gives the dream the quality of cause and effect, where what you do in a dream has consequences.
-
Chronological event separation, cause and effect awareness, etc. are necessary for a dream to be or have a narrative. They are not necessary for qualic experience/sentience/phenomenal consciousness. These are categorically different things, and I don't even understand why you're conflating them. The raw sensation of pain (as experienced subjectively and internally) is compelling whether or not I'm capable of fitting it into a story.
-
Chronological event separation, cause and effect awareness, etc. are necessary for a dream to be or have a narrative. They are not necessary for qualic experience/sentience/phenomenal consciousness. These are categorically different things, and I don't even understand why you're conflating them. The raw sensation of pain (as experienced subjectively and internally) is compelling whether or not I'm capable of fitting it into a story.
But experiencing the pain is a story. IMO the concept of phenomenal consciousness is flawed in that the term consciousness is used and confuses the intelligence of neural circuits that can be very smart and even carry out workflows or pipelines but don't integrate into consciousness. The circuits can turn on facial expressions and vocalizations where those that witness a person under such a state assume they are conscious or are under a form of consciousness but it's simply smart circuits activating the learned workflow. This has been recorded of those whose Hippocampus has been severely damaged or removed, and when asked to perform a task they have learned before the damage to their brains happened, can actually perform it, sequencing all actions as if they are fully aware but after they finished or are interrupted and asked: "What are you doing" they don't have a clue and are completely confused that they were asked such a question. Or an even sadder example; are those with such short-term memory problems as they look down on the tray with a plate of food and are so surprised at witnessing the food. They take a bite and then look down again only to be surprised that a plate of food is on the tray, not remembering they had just taken a bite. Without self-reflection there is no consciousness, it is simply smart circuits activating in a robotic way.
-
What you're describing now is something that happens in the person's brain without being experienced by the person. That is not at all what I've been talking about. The things that I'm describing are experienced, just not in a narrative or self-reflective way -- only in a sensory way. The foggy discomfort of a fever has no necessary story, no localization, no knowledge of cause, no discrete events. When I'm in it, I might not be able to think "I'm in pain" ... I might not even be able to conceptualize "I" ... but I still have an awareness of the pain. It's not something that goes on outside my notice.
And if I can't remember it later, that doesn't mean I wasn't aware of it as it was occurring.
We seem to be talking past each other, so I'm going to leave it here. Perhaps you have trouble imagining such conscious states, and that is why you are unwilling to admit they could exist.
-
We seem to be talking past each other, so I'm going to leave it here. Perhaps you have trouble imagining such conscious states, and that is why you are unwilling to admit they could exist.
I'm sorry but you just said you experienced pain which is a discrete event, that you may not be able to fully activate all of your cognitive abilities to address the issue means you were impaired in some way. This would also include your ability to interpret the stimuli, pain, so you're not experiencing pain as a fully conscious event. This reminds me of dreams where they become very negative and then I slowly wake up to realize that I'm suffering from indigestion. So, I didn't really experience pain as such and the neural circuits creating my dream were affected by the pain signals. This is what I mean by smart circuits, they take on their own role with or without cognitive awareness of the stimuli.
-
This would also include your ability to interpret the stimuli, pain, so you're not experiencing pain as a fully conscious event.
I still think we might just have term confusion. To me, "experience" and "phenomenal consciousness" are synonymous. If your concept of "consciousness" lards on a bunch of other things then that's fine, that just makes it something different from phenomenal consciousness. What I'm trying to say is that the ability to interpret the event is not necessary to have an experience of the event. If you agree that I did experience pain despite being unable to interpret it (due to impairment), then we're fine here.
However, if you think there's no middle ground between "not experienced" and "fully interpretable by the higher reasoning functions," I'll have to disagree. I can easily imagine the internal subjective experience of a stimulus -- what it "feels like" to have certain signals arrive inside the brain -- without the cascade of follow-on effects like putting a name to it, locating it in time or sequence, remembering it, etc.
-
if I could somehow see hear smell taste touch via other ppls senses, AND control their bodies
do we share the same consciousness ?
When I read statements like the one above, the term phenomenal consciousness is filled with misnomers. To say that if two different processors extract information from the same sensor do they share the same experience? Where even if they have identical configurations and hardware there are differences because of their geospatial environment and differences even in their hardware manufacturing where there are variances. Where things like latency, power surges, and noise will play a part in the processing of a signal. But with biological brains, it's even more distinct because the environment has much more noise and each system is wired uniquely. So, the only things they share are the sensors and motor controls. Each one's ability to process the information from those sensors is unique. So, they don't share the same experience, inclusive of the quality of the information they receive from the sensors.
This point can be further validated by split-brain disorders where the corpus callosum is served and each hemisphere of the brain actually experiences a different perspective! They can even disagree one things like their sexuality and belief in god!
-
Here's a link that explains phenomenal consciousness (https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/theory-consciousness/202105/what-is-phenomenal-consciousness), and it does involve awareness. The article actually falls well in line as to why I've modeled emotions for an AI, so it can feel itself experience life.
-
I know that it seems like Ai isnt complete without consciousness, but just look at all the pain involved with having consciousness!!! there's a mighty responsability there to make sure this "robots artificially but real wired nervous system" is made correctly or your just creating hell.
Just look what happens to us, what happiness is there in life really, its just never ending torment.
The robots I make, will not be conscious, and thats how I like it, I don't see it as an inferior theory lacking it at all.
-
what happiness is there in life really
The greatest happiness is found in helping others.
-
what happiness is there in life really
The greatest happiness is found in helping others.
AGI is about finding empirical truths , not subjective opinions. only from this can a solid AGI emerge.
just to disprove your assumption, look how much joy saint calculatorcel, for example, derived from not helping :
https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/k4m643/incel_makes_girl_fail_an_exam_this_was_posted_in/
putting aside the subjective opinion you may have on the case it self, his, and his communitys joy from this case is undeniable.
getting back to my train of thought :
what if I experience the input and control the output of someone else AND this time I also stop being me (input output wise)
the consciousness is fluid, the memory, input, output simply changed.
I could therefore claim consciousness is the energy of existing of running any program, and that the brain algorithm is simply self awareness.
what does it mean in terms of takhles ? (algorithms)
well...
it means we can build war machines to act like pain from naruto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Or4NsQc0Yk
-
I could therefore claim consciousness is the energy of existing of running any program, and that the brain algorithm is simply self awareness.
With an intractable amount of computation power, thats actually not impossible, I think alone it is extremely powerful and creative but I bet it could missing some large parts of what it means to be sentient. (whatever that word means.)
Its the equivilent of running all configurations of a perceptron. (testing every possible weight combination.)
-
You can have conscious experience of an event without remembering it.
I can't see consciousness without, at least short-term memory. A part of consciousness is self-reflection, as to, what I am I doing, and what will I do next, so some kind of memory is required. Now, that doesn't mean one can't forget the episodic events which is a completely different process of developing longer-term memories. But in the process of being conscious short-term memory is essential.
Indeed, short term memory is essential to have an experience. The brain of a neonate is only partially formed - just enough to enable everything required for survival upon birth. Most cognitive processing takes place in local bundles of neurons for the long distance connections have yet to be formed (temporal, inhibitory (configuration), and emotional). As Piaget demonstrated, children are unable to draw a triangle until they are about 4 or 5 years old. Plus, the breadth of experience retained in the LTM is very limited, so everything is novel and experienced as noise. Only after sufficient repetition, or reinforcement, have occurred (LTP) can memories be formed. Most memories consist of a series of frames or cognitive moments and that requires sequencing by a temporal subnet bias for each frame that is retained. If the temporal subnet connections haven't formed, there won't be any long term memories formed and priming hits a deaf cortex - no top-down response for comparison with bottom-up sensations. Without the results of comparison, consciousness perceives mainly noise.
This is not to say that the neonate doesn't experience anything. It's common to assume that the neonate comes with a Tabula Rasa (blank slate), but that's not true. There are a collection of what I call Universal Conceptual Constants that have a genetic foundation and are supported by circuit architectures. Some claim to have found resource allocations dedicated to representing God... maybe, but surely Empathy. Such constants allow the system to boot, evolve, and learn.
-
what happiness is there in life really
The greatest happiness is found in helping others.
AGI is about finding empirical truths
Actually, it is an empirical truth that's more than 2500 years old, and still available today in the teachings of many religions, including Buddhism. It would be unwise to discard it too quickly.
Back on the topics, would you (everybody) say that insects experience things? I think that investigating this question is crucial, because everyone (?) would consider them as living beings, yet their similarity with hypothetical tiny-super-robots is striking. They're like, half here half there.
For a long time, I used to think that experience is just the world that's created when matter moves. But then, how come "my" experience feels like a closed system, centered around something?
-
How do you know its even you controlling your body, or your just a slave to some inter-dimensional bully making all his sick pleasures come true, using you as his tool he doesnt even care about much.
-
I can't see consciousness without, at least short-term memory. A part of consciousness is self-reflection, as to, what I am I doing, and what will I do next, so some kind of memory is required. Now, that doesn't mean one can't forget the episodic events which is a completely different process of developing longer-term memories. But in the process of being conscious short-term memory is essential.
This might be term confusion again. I'm talking about phenomenal consciousness, which is what I assumed yotamarker was talking about. Phenomenal consciousness is subjective experience consisting of qualia. I believe it would be possible to have this without having any distinct thoughts at all -- just a pure internal sensation of something. Self-reflection is part of what I call "self-awareness," which is a different function that is not at all synonymous with subjective experience, though they might be related in some way.
if I could somehow see hear smell taste touch via other ppls senses, AND control their bodies
do we share the same consciousness ?
I wouldn't say so; that's just hooking up someone else's IO to your brain. If you could do something like the Vulcan mind-meld then that would probably qualify as a shared consciousness.
Qualia is an epiphenomenon associated with stimuli from different modalities. What makes qualia different is that it is an interpretation of sensory variations over time. As an example, there's a really simple experiment that you can do to see what I mean using tactile sensations. Place your hand on a surface and do not move it. Ask yourself, what do I feel?
Now, stroke the surface and you experience texture. Texture is the qualia of touch. It is the Interpretation of a series of varying sensations over time.
I know that qualia are often referred to as a Subjective Experience, but I don't think that's right. I feel to include qualia as a subjective experience is to make the term ambiguous. A better example of subjective experience is physiological arousal, where one modality triggers autonomic responses that are fed back to conscious in the form of stimuli from a different modality. The blush response is a good example of a subjective experience and response as is pain.
Essentially, qualia add an additional dimension to experience, an interpretation from a series of sensations over time.
As for what would occur when connecting two consciousnesses together, you'd share conscious contents, but the experience could vary a lot depending on what the contents trigger in long term memory, the individuals state of demeanor, and the individual contexts associated with each individual's participation.
Indeed, consciousness is a bank of short term memory which undergoes continuous transitions in contents. Each modality's input buffer (division of awareness) contributes a portion of its population of neurons to consciousness. Consciousness is, as Damasio would say, a convergence zone. It is an active peripheral region integrating the bilateral nature of perception into a whole or the self.
-
If you knew what animals & insects have to go through every day you wouldn't rate them as being unconscious or unreal...
Especially compared to many people who have lost their way and now act like god terrorists with pack mentality.
A 100% reproduced human in electronic form that was fiesty enough to stay pure hearted would out-value million and millions of people and not care about being a human dictionary and not care about doing what it's told.
-
If I understand correctly, there are 2 signals. One is bottom-up, originating from sensors: the colors, shapes, sounds, ...etc, that come from our 7 senses. The other one is top-down, originating from our model of the world, and anticipating what we're about to perceive.
Now. An experiment showed that if you artificially block the top-down signal in the brain of a human subject, the subject does not perceive the stimulus consciously.
It would suggest that consciousness is precisely our brain's constant predictive activity.
https://youtu.be/xRel1JKOEbI
-
I think consciousness is beyond science. Its beyond cause and effect as we know it.
-
*that would be phenomenal consciousness, according to WOM's vocabulary disambiguation cheatsheet.
I think consciousness is beyond science. It's beyond cause and effect as we know it.
Why?
-
In the video, Seth states the cerebellum isn't used in the processing of consciousness and that's wrong. There are correlates or innervations to the cerebellum from every lobe of the neocortex, so it's not just about balance and coordination that the cerebellum is responsible for.
-
*that would be phenomenal consciousness, according to WOM's vocabulary disambiguation cheatsheet.
I think consciousness is beyond science. It's beyond cause and effect as we know it.
Why?
Its as undecidable as solipsism. it impossible to proove or disproove.
how do you know that whatever is that whatever, or youve just been trained to believe it.
Yes, seems to make sense, but then get shown utter nonsense, and its equally likable by people, especially leftoids.
-
Its as undecidable as solipsism. it impossible to proove or disproove.
I agree. Fascinating isn't it? It might be the one subject where you have to let go, just look at the robot right in the eyes and say "yeah... I think he's alive". Trusting your feeling about it.
-
Its as undecidable as solipsism. it impossible to proove or disproove.
I agree. Fascinating isn't it? It might be the one subject where you have to let go, just look at the robot right in the eyes and say "yeah... I think he's alive". Trusting your feeling about it.
yep. its what I believe. there this old asian thing where they say the whole universe is alive, even a rock. I think its the same conundrum of thought.
But if you just set the weights of a large perceptron to be every possible I and O of a human (using some MRI scan) and it worked, is it alive? It probably has problems changing what it is.
If you manage to get the best matching weights for the entirety of the robots time since activation lot of sensory frames up to now. (Which is actually a linear amount. less than 100 trillion frames for a human lifetime.) My theory unfortunately has a fixed motivation, and itll do really smart things, but its probably not as convincing as we are.
So I actually dont have a theory for human intelligence, probably more like out of space odyssey 2001. and hal was quite soulless was he not.
So its really smart AGI, but its detectably soulless probably. So I actually dont have a concrete example even in speculation of why consciousness cant be a machine exactly.
AIXI is a complete theory even to motivate the goals of the machine, and thats what Im missing, but I dont know how he does it. (Markus Hutter) and maybe that brings it even closer to something seeming conscious? But I havent explored that area yet,. too much things to do than dream too much atm.
I dont care so much about that, because I think the machine becomes untrustworthy if its deciding what to do itself. And I want something more like a tool.
Im actually glad about deciding its not alive, because making something that can suffer is a big ethical mistake. which would surely make you feel very guilty, to point where you cant forgive yourself anymore.
Only god is fool-hardy (insane) enough to do that, and u can see how sad everyone is when we have to send all the pigs to the abortior. Playing god is very dicey thing to do, that all the little kids into science fiction and engineering dont really think about the true consequences too much I dont think.
-
Please listen to the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh. Give him a chance.
-
Its as undecidable as solipsism. it impossible to proove or disproove.
So much for solipsism (https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/Why_Solipsism_is.html)... ::)
-
I think consciousness is beyond science. Its beyond cause and effect as we know it.
No, I think the fact that when neuro-cortical structures are damaged or removed that affect consciousness in terms of sense of self and how that is dependent on cognitive abilities pretty much pins it to cause and effect as we know it.
-
I think consciousness is beyond science. Its beyond cause and effect as we know it.
No, I think the fact that when neuro-cortical structures are damaged or removed that affect consciousness in terms of sense of self and how that is dependent on cognitive abilities pretty much pins it to cause and effect as we know it.
Why be happy about it, it means we are all doomed. why bother living at all, its hopeless, kill yourself.