[ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI

[John Clark]

On Dec 18, 2009,  Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Biological brains do something we don't yet understand. Call it X.

Ok let's do that, X it is. I'm assuming you're not talking about anything supernatural that we can never understand even in principle, I'm assuming you're talking about a perfectly rational principle that we just haven't discovered yet. I can't deny that there is a lot we don't know, and the human brain is the most complex object in the observable universe, we've only been studying it for a short time so we may be in for some major surprises. But if Process X is rational, that means we can use our minds to examine what sort of thing it might turn out to be. It seems pretty clear that information processing can produce something that's starting to look like intelligence, but we'll assume that Process X can do this too, but in addition Process X can generate consciousness and a feeling of self, something mere information processing alone cannot do.
What Process X does is certainly not simple, so it's very hard to avoid concluding that Process X itself is not simple. If it's complex then it can't be made of only one thing, it must be made of parts. If Process X is not to act in a random, incoherent way some order must exist between the parts. A part must have some knowledge of what the other parts are doing and the only way to do that is with information.

But maybe communication among the parts is of only secondary importance and that the major work is done by the parts themselves. However then the parts must be very complex and be made of sub parts. The simplest possible sub part is one that can change in only one way, say, on to off. It's getting extremely difficult to tell the difference between Process X and information processing.

The only way to avoid this conclusion is if there is some ethereal substance that is all of one thing and has no parts thus is very simple, yet acts in a complex, intelligent way; and produces feeling and consciousness while its at it. If you accept that, then I think the most honest thing to do would be to throw in the towel, call it a soul, and join the religious camp. I'm not ready to surrender to the forces of irrationality.
> By the way ignore those who say we can't define consciousness. If it has subjective understanding of anything whatsoever -- in the common parlance if it can hold in anything whatsoever in mind -- then it has consciousness.
> 
So something is conscious if it has subjective understanding and something has subjective understanding if it is conscious. 
> 
> Another sign of consciousness: things that have it can overcome the symbol grounding problem. 

So something has consciousness if it can overcome the symbol grounding problem and something can overcome the symbol grounding problem if it has consciousness. And round and round we go.

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091218/636652e4/attachment.html>