Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tack]

Damn, I hate Cartesians.

Cartesianist.

And hey, believers gotta believe. Don't hate a pray-er.

[wierd]

There exists a class of AI known as "Fuzzy Logic" AIs.

These AIs "Decide" that "Something" is happening, based on heuristic, and incomplete sets of information, make actions, and record data about those actions, which are then fed back in as more "Fuzzy" data to refine the choice heuristic.

They are not explicitly programmed in 'how' to determine that "something" is happening, nor in "how" to respond. They make "Guesses", and then proceed in the most logical fashion based on their conclusions.

In order for them to accomplish this, they have to have some measure of "awareness".
This is quite pronounced in fuzzy+Neuralnet AI hybrids.

And, in response to your last question--- I have determined that I cannot acceptably answer if I am having what you term "An experience", without making an unqualified assertion. Thus, I cannot "know". I can only conjecture.

[LordBucket]

Forgive me if I don't actually read your link, but...I don't see why it's a problem. Maybe they're aware. So?

I'm more interested in you. Are you having an experience? Are you aware of having an experience? If yes, how can you possibly conclude that you might not be a conscious entity?

I am able to determine that I have experienced a sensation; I am unable to fully rationalize that I am an independent, fully actualized intelligence. Simply experiencing a stimulus does not equate to "Consciousness". 

What do you mean by "conscious" that the fact of having experienced sensation is insufficient for you to conclude that you are?

[wierd]

That's what I have been trying to convey-

I am not CERTAIN that I am having an experience. As such, I cannot KNOW that I have had one. Knowledge is axiomatic. It requires certainty.

I cannot be certain that my reactions to any stimulous are voluntary, or that any of the sensations I percieve are in fact real, or even that I myself am in fact real.

That gets much more .... complicated... mentally to convey.

For a sorta-but-not-quite-there illustration-- 

If I run a sequential number generator out to populate the entire data space of a 2mb file, (it will be geometrically larger than 2mb), then by definition, EVERY POSSIBLE 2mb file will be inside it.

Most books are less than 2mb in size in raw textual form, and many MP3 files are as well. This raw, sequential sequence, will by REQUIREMENT, contain every single one of those. The production of a sequential binary expression does not require the agency of a sentience, yet therein will lie many works of shakespeare.

I can be such a product, produced by an unthinking and uncaring process, and be just as sterile.

[LordBucket]

Hmm. For me it's very simple. I observe....and yes, I'm having an experience. Again, this is a fundamental. I can't confirm whether my experience bears any resemblance to any external reality, I can't confirm whether my thoughts are generated by me or whether they're being handed to me, I can't confirm whether my apparent "memory" of experience is actually a sequential experiencing of experience or a "now" experiencing of an illusory implanted memory of experiences that never happened, I can't confirm whether the "things" I'm observing are actually "things" and not simply a manufactured or hallucinated experience...

...but the fact of the experience itself and awareness of it, that, yes, I can confirm.

Even the memory of having been consciously aware previously might be an implanted illusion. I "remember" having been aware previously, having experienced experience previously...even that might not be "real." But right now I am definitely observing an experience.

[wierd]

That is an assertion.

Any statement that relies on an assertion, can ultimately be false, if the assertion is false. Without a means to determine ultimate truth, no such ultimate assertion can be made.

As for the disparaging comments about descartes from the peanut gallery--

I am not, per se, an adherent of descartes.  I simply do not reject the notion on sight. I instead, explore the possibilities it offers.

Philosophically, i could be best described as an "omni-agnostic."

I can only derive tentative relationships to describe progressions of what would be true, if certain preconditions were true.  I cannot assert ultimate truth; I do not possess the knowledge from which to make such a determination. Instead, I see possibilities, and potential consequences of possibilities.

The only really strong result I have concluded, is that I appear incapable of knowing, *anything*. I can only surmise, with confidence, based on a presumption.

I cannot know if said presumption is itself-- true. I cannot therefor, give a universal truth. Only a relative one, within a finitely bounded portion of the space of possibility within which I am able to cogitate.

[LordBucket]

I am making that assertion, yes. But the observation itself is an observable. You can't know whether my assertion of observation is factual, but I can because I'm the one making the observation.

If (you are having an experience) then (you are having an experience)

If (1) then (1)

If even that is not something you're willing to "take on faith" then...it seems unlikely that anything at all can be reasonably be concluded from your base.

Edit:
Or, again, you might be a zombie.

[wierd]

If you are indeed able to rationally make this determination, then your abilities of perception and deduction greatly exceed my own.

Your latter statement is precisely the conclusion I have made.

[wierd]

Well, not the zombie part. I had not concluded that I am a zombie-- but I suppose that possibility is technically possible, in some very far fetched modes of cogitation.

(the matter from which I am composed may have been a part of a previously animate assemblage. Having later lost that animation, and now being once more animate, the differences between myself and a fictional flesh zombie can be considered academic trifles.)

[wierd]

For me, the question is not

If A, then A.

the question is,

If A (Cannot define), then (Undefined)

That is the real reason why a person cannot divide an integer by 0--- There are two, equally valid, answers, with no determination between them which to return. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero

I cannot determine if A is true.

EG,

If A (True or false), then A (True or false)

you are claiming one possible answer, and running with it.
I see both answers. There is no basis to choose.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

My definition of consciousness is the ability to recursively check whether a way of doing something is effective at performing the required task (i.e. checking whether a way of thinking gets the results wanted and then checking whether the way of checking is effective (with the same way of checking or with a different one)), then checking whether doing so is (cost-)effective.

If you give a device a way to do this, you're essentially shielding it from logical paradoxes running with infinite recursion.

[Tack]

Isn't that just a feedback loop?
This worked- therefore, good. Do that more.
This doesn't work. Bad. Don't do that as much.

[Levi]

I'm not sure any of this really matters.  I'd be happy to be a imperfect copy if it meant immortality.  If I'm only 70% me its better than 0% me.  If I'm only 20% me, well that sucks but its still better than 0% me.

[scrdest]

I'm not sure any of this really matters.  I'd be happy to be a imperfect copy if it meant immortality.  If I'm only 70% me its better than 0% me.  If I'm only 20% me, well that sucks but its still better than 0% me.

Well, making a 50% you copy is commonly known as 'having a child'.

[Levi]

I'm not sure any of this really matters.  I'd be happy to be a imperfect copy if it meant immortality.  If I'm only 70% me its better than 0% me.  If I'm only 20% me, well that sucks but its still better than 0% me.

Well, making a 50% you copy is commonly known as 'having a child'.

Well, I mean my mind, but yeah.