*Discussion in Second Life Sunday, Sept 21 @ 13:00 SLT / 21:00 GMT, Moderated by: Maria Hume / Marya Blaisdale*
*Transcript of the discussion*
“The best reason for believing that robots might some day become conscious is that we human beings are conscious, and we are a sort of robot ourselves. That is, we are extraordinarily complex self-controlling, self-sustaining physical mechanisms, designed over the eons by natural selection, and operating according to the same well-understood principles that govern all the other physical processes in living things: digestive and metabolic processes, self-repair and reproductive processes, for instance. It may be wildly over-ambitious to suppose that human artificers can repeat Nature’s triumph, with variations in material, form, and design process, but this is not a deep objection. It is not as if a conscious machine contradicted any fundamental laws of nature, the way a perpetual motion machine does. Still, many sceptics believe – or in any event want to believe – that it will never be done.” (Daniel Dennett)
What is Consciousness?
“The words “mind” and “consciousness” are used by different communities in different ways. For philosophers, neuroscientists and cognitive scientists, the words are used in a way that is both more precise and more mundane: they refer to the familiar, everyday experience of having a “thought in your head”, like a perception, a dream, an intention or a plan, and to the way we know something, or mean something or understand something.” (Wiki)
John Searle states that it is incoherent to think that AI could ever achieve consciousness because a machine could never achieve ‘understanding’ in the sense that humans have, while Minsky’s view is that the mind consists of several hundred mini computer-like systems that have evolved to perform specific tasks; these mini computers combined create consciousness – therefore it is theoretically possible to create AI consciousness.
So, what do you think?
1. Do you agree with Searle that it can’t or perhaps Minsky who says it can? (Please see the notes below for Searle’s Chinese Room argument and more from Minsky.)
2. If it is ultimately possible, then the question becomes ‘should’ we do it? What are the potential implications?
** Recommended Reading & Viewing **
Brain Spotting Part 2 (On YouTube)
Episode2 – Part 1/5:
Episode2 – Part 2/5:
Episode2 – Part 3/5: (up to 06:55) Approximately 26 minutes in total
Wiki Entry on Philosophy of AI:
Searle’s Chinese Room Argument (Brief):
Marvin Minksy: Why People Think Computers Can’t
John Searle: Minds, Brains and Programs:
Please join us for the discussion on Open Habitat, Second Life on Sunday 21 September at 13:00 PST / 21:00 GMT
Filed under: Artificial intelligence, Consciousness, Facebook, Maria Hume, Marya Blaisdale, Minds and brains, Open Habitat, Oxford Online Short Courses, philosophy, Second Life, Second Philosophy Tagged: | Artificial intelligence, brain, Consciousness, John Searle, Maria Hume, Marya Blaisdale, Mind
Howdy Folks,
Sorry i’m going to miss the Second Life discussion this afternoon. My lowtech setup just won’t get me there. Here are a couple of points i had hoped to make:
The discussion so far certainly points to the crux of the problem. It boils down to how and where meaning is attached to the process. Computers have been designed from theoretical beginnings as general purpose machines. The processing is done with abstract numbers and without specific meaning. The meaning is assigned when a programmer assigns values to variables within the program. In biological systems, the information processing system evolved around meaning in the first place.
Read Montegue’s work
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/08/a_new_state_of_mind.php
with dopamine neurons shows that expectations for future behavior are generated at the cellular level. The future is anticipated and reaction comes if those expectations are not met. This kind of “intelligent action” certainly suggests that meaning is an integral part of the system. And really, how could it be any other way?
Meaning and understanding had to be functional within the system a long time before human beings came around and assigned their own “meaning” to reality. Navigation within a dynamic environment has always required a basic “understanding” of time, space, velocity, along with the ability to identify objects and respond accordingly. Attempts to build robots that can navigate 3d space has shown us that a great deal of information processing is required to get the job done.
If machines are going to think, they will have to be able to discover meaning for themselves.
cheers,
jim
Interesting comments, Jim, about meaning. Yesterday we were discussing consciousness and its relation to intelligence. I guess consciousness and creating meaning is closely linked? Shall refer to your link. Hope you can join us in the future. You may wish to join our Facebook group. There’s a link on the sidebar. If you’ve already done so, please do intro yourself on the discussion board. Best, Kathryn Koromilas (Sojourna Alexandre in-world).