[ExI] Some new angle about AI.
jonkc at bellsouth.net
Fri Jan 8 05:48:03 UTC 2010
On Jan 7, 2010, Aware wrote:
>> Because we learned from the history of Evolution that consciousness is easy
>> but intelligence is hard.
> Well, that response clearly adds nothing to the discussion
Which word didn'y you understand?
> and you stripped out my supporting text.
I quote just enough material for you to know which part I'm responding to, feel free to strip my text in return, in fact I wish you would. The respond button is a diabolical invention, if people had to laboriously type in all quoted material I'll bet people would get to the point mighty damn fast.
>>> before evolutionary processes stumbled upon the additional, supervisory, hack of self-awareness
>> What you just said is logically absurd.
> I note that you're not asking for any clarification.
None was needed, you were perfectly clear, just illogical.
>> If consciousness doesn't effect intelligence
> Do you mean literally "If consciousness doesn't produce intelligence"
> or do you mean "If consciousness doesn't affect intelligence"?
Put it this way, if intelligence didn't automatically produce consciousness then we wouldn't have it because Evolution couldn't even see it much less develop it.
> appears that you must harbor a mystical notion
The guy is known for disliking mysticism so lets call him a mystic. Boy I never heard that one before!
> of "consciousness", that contributes to the somewhat
> "intelligent" behavior of the amoeba
I make no claim that an amoeba is intelligent or even "intelligent". Others have said that but not me; but I did say that if you accept that hypothetical then it is most certainly conscious.
> despite its apparent lack of the neuronal apparatus necessary to support a sense of self.
Unless you have just made the scientific discovery of the ages nobody knows what sort of neuronal apparatus are necessary for consciousness.
>> there is no way Evolution could have "stumbled upon" the trick of generating consciousness
> It may be relevant that the way evolution (It's not clear why you would capitalize that word)
If people can capitalize God I can capitalize Evolution, Scientific Method too.
> works is always in terms of blind, stumbling, random variation.
That is true but if Evolution stumbles onto something that doesn't help its genes get into the next generation then it has discovered nothing and just keeps on stumbling .
> the extent the organism's fitness would be enhanced by the ability to model possible variations on itself
Fine, if you're right then the ability of an organism to model itself would change its behavior in such a way that it is more likely to survive than if it lacked this ability; and observing behavior is what the Turing Test is all about.
>> In short if even one conscious being exists on Planet Earth
>> and if Evolution is true then the Turing Test works;
> Huh? If there were only one conscious being, then wouldn't that have
> to be the one judging the Turing Test?
> And if there is no other conscious being, how could any (non-conscious by definition) subject
> pass the test
So what? The wouldn't pass the test nor should they if the test is valid.
> such that the TT would be shown to "work"?
The Turing Test will never be proven to work, few things outside of pure mathematics can be, but if you assume that Evolution is true and knowing from direct experience that at least one conscious being exists then you can deduce that the Turing Test must work.
> It seems to me that we observe the existence of both classes of
> evolved organisms.
I belong to the class of conscious evolved organisms and I believe you belong to the same class because you pass the Turing Test. Of course you have no reason to think I'm conscious because you don't believe in the Turing Test, but never-mind. You know from direct experience that you are conscious so how did you come to be? If the same behavior can be produced without consciousness (and that's why the Turing Test doesn't work) then I repeat my question, how did you come to be? Evolution doesn't find or retain traits that don't help an organism survive. If Evolution can see something then so can the Turing Test, and consciousness is something.
> I'm guessing that our disagreement here comes down to different usage
> and meaning of the terms "intelligence" and "consciousness"
I don't think so.
> and it might be significant that you stripped out all evidence and results of
> my efforts to effectively define them. You seem not to play fair, so it's not much fun.
Oh for God's sake! If somebody wants to read your original post again they certainly have the means of doing so.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat