[ExI] consciousness vs intuition and insight
micheals at msu.edu
Sun Jan 18 04:58:46 UTC 2009
ACOMA -- A COnscious MAchine
Can it be done?
Can it be designed by me?
It's 'official'; I'm 'nuts'. I have been officially told by a university
professor of computer science: "This problem is too big for you Sam."
Really? Is that so? Are you 1000% sure?
As a person 'in love' (understatement) with systems science, physics,
and AI, I have taken so many courses from engineering disciplines -- I
have lost count -- where and when.. I DO remember a computer vision
course I took. I DO remember some basic precepts. I DO remember how we
know almost nothing about scene recognition (this was about 15 years ago
so perhaps we know a little more now). But if you actually READ my
proposal, it says NOTHING about dependency on scene recognition. In
fact, it depends not one IOTA on anything 'in development'.
This is the 'beauty' of our current system. "Instead of pursuing this
avenue of investigation, /which I doubt you have any real experience
in/.." [italics added] he continues to suggest I restrict myself to more
'tame' and approachable areas in computer science. I thanked him for his
traditional concern. But his 'concern' was itself dismissive. His
department is focused on computer science education. Why should they
care about conscious machines? "They would have done it by now if they
could." (He voiced almost the same sentiment in the same letter.) Wow;
what a 'revelation'. And all this to say without actually reading my
Perspective; perspective; perspective. Read Modern Heuristics by
Michalewicz. If you can understand that, you're smart. If you can apply
it, you're smarter. Now, I'm not saying I'm /that/ smart. ;) But I am
saying I have some insights about the problem. Key word: insights.
What's another key word? Intuition. Now, let me review a recent
conversation with my mother about consciousness..
"The reason AI people have not developed conscious machines is because
they have focused on intelligence NOT consciousness. And they have made
the critical conceptual error in thinking that consciousness is
dependent on immature technologies like computer vision. It is NOT. I
contend consciousness is /physical/; we can understand it physically.
However, much more elusive are concepts like intuition and inspiration.
I contend we will develop conscious machines /way before/ we will
develop machines with intuition and inspiration."
My design is more than just 'physical'; it is information dependent.
There is a thing in my design called a rule-base. Is this the same thing
as a database? Is it constructed with data mining? Maybe. Maybe not. I
try to define some general specifications. I believe I have a construct
that is 'rich' enough (diverse and sophisticated enough) to at least
mimic consciousness. And I try to provide much more than consciousness.
I design structures that will assist intelligence and self-awareness.
Hopefully, these will enhance consciousness. The idea is this: I think
it is difficult to create consciousness from scratch -- but not
impossible. If we can create a device that is minimally aware and also
give it some capabilities: intelligence, self-awareness (via model), and
some capacity for visualization (which to me is Very important), we may
achieve what most have said is impossible -- machine consciousness. My
construct is perhaps too dependent on visualization. My original
specification exceeded the current technology (1 mega bits cubed).
Because that is impossible by current standards, I had to cut that down
by a factor of one million. Can the thing still be self-aware with
limited visualization capability? I don't know. But it's worth trying.
It's certainly worth more than "This problem is too big for you Sam."
Sam Micheal, 17/JAN/2009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat