[ExI] Conscious AI or a Zombie?

Sun Jul 2 23:41:46 UTC 2023

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023, 7:07 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
> This Jeremy Bentham statement could be saying the same thing we are trying
> to say in the "No Rights for Abstract Systems
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/849-Robot-or-AI-Rights/2-No-Rights-for-Abstract-Systems>"
> camp.
>
> But I suspect you are disagreeing with the camp statement, and defining
> terms differently than I'm thinking?
>

I don't see that there's any way one can define an "abstract system" in a
way that doesn't include ourselves.

Jason

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 4:54 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 2, 2023, 5:32 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's interesting how much diversity of thinking there is here on the
>>> rights of AI systems.
>>> I'm very interested in what everyone thinks, and would love to have a
>>> more formal and dynamic representation of what everyone
>>> currently believes on this.
>>> I've created a topic for this: "Robot or AI Rights
>>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/849-Robot-or-AI-Rights/1-Agreement>".
>>> And I've started the "No Rights for Abstract Systems
>>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/849-Robot-or-AI-Rights/2-No-Rights-for-Abstract-Systems>"
>>> camp.
>>>
>>
>> “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they
>> suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?”
>> -- Jeremy Bentham
>>
>> It'd be great to have camps for people who currently think differently,
>>> and to see which views have the most consensus, and to track this over time
>>> as science is able to demonstrate more about what consciousness is and
>>> isn't.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 12:39 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except for smell, sensations come to us from our unconscious mind.
>>>> There they get routed to various brain areas and then, only perhaps (they
>>>> could be shut down and never get to the forebrain) to upper areas.  These
>>>> processes are aware of the nature of the stimuli and know where to send
>>>> them, but they are not available to our conscious mind.
>>>>
>>>> Or you could say that these unconscious processes are really conscious
>>>> but simply not available to what we call our conscious mind.  Thus you can
>>>> have awareness or consciousness in part of the brain but not the part we
>>>> think of as our consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> If an organism deals in some appropriate way with incoming stimuli you
>>>> could call it aware.  Amoebas do that.
>>>>
>>>> bill w
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 1:02 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stuart,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for putting your argument into such clear words. I agree
>>>>> completely with your definition of CAP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, those videos of the AI and robotic soccer players are great. I
>>>>> also agree it is not logically possible to say these entities are not aware
>>>>> of the ball, and what else is consciousness, beyond "awareness"? If the
>>>>> bots are aware of the ball (which they plainly are), then they're conscious
>>>>> of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 6:16 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting Jason Resch via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>>> >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > If you believe that philosophical zombies are logically impossible,
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> > consciousness is logically necessary (in the presence of certain
>>>>>> > behavioral, sensory, and introspective capacities).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, I would more rigorously say that philosophical zombies are
>>>>>> impossible precisely BECAUSE they violate what I call causal
>>>>>> awareness
>>>>>> principle or CAP. Causal awareness is hereby defined as the ability
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> sense, act on, and react to ones environment as well as ones own
>>>>>> effect on it. Anything that is causally aware is able to act
>>>>>> rationally. Consciousness is necessary, but not sufficient, for
>>>>>> causal
>>>>>> awareness, and therefore, rational action. However, something cannot
>>>>>> act rationally without being conscious too. Acting in ones own best
>>>>>> interests requires consciousness. A sentient being must be conscious
>>>>>> of those interests and the means to achieve them in the context of a
>>>>>> changing environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here rational action is used as a proxy for intelligent behavior.
>>>>>> That
>>>>>> is to say that philosophical zombies cannot exist because they would
>>>>>> have no way to display intelligent goal-seeking behavior because
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> would not be conscious of any goal; Therefore, they could not be
>>>>>> conscious of how to navigate the environment to achieve a goal; nor,
>>>>>> would they be conscious of whether they had achieved the goal or
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>> That is to say, that logically, a philosophical zombie does not have
>>>>>> the logical properties necessary to fit its own definition.
>>>>>> Philosophical zombies are an unwarranted assumption to make the Hard
>>>>>> Problem of consciousness seem like a different question than the
>>>>>> so-called Easy Problem, whereas, CAP says that the complete solution
>>>>>> of the Easy Problem, is also the solution to Hard Problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While pre-programmed behavior could mimic rational action in the
>>>>>> short
>>>>>> term, any sufficient change in the p-zombie's environment, like a
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> obstacle, would thwart it, and expose it as a zombie. In the harsh
>>>>>> world of nature, philosophical zombies, even if they came to exist
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> some extraordinary chance, would quickly go extinct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore philosophical zombies, as opposed to fungal zombies, are
>>>>>> both logically and physically impossible. It is, in short,
>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>> to do what humans evolved from worms to be able to do, without being
>>>>>> in some measure, more conscious than a worm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Accordingly, I believe
>>>>>> > that consciousness was an unavoidable consequence during the course
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> > evolution of life on Earth as once nature created creatures having
>>>>>> certain
>>>>>> > capacities/abilities, consciousness had no other choice but to
>>>>>> exist, it
>>>>>> > became logically necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there is certainly a natural history of consciousness. You can
>>>>>> look at the evolution of the nervous system of vertebrates through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> process of encephalization and decussation and see a causal
>>>>>> narrative.
>>>>>> The moment life decided to detach itself from the ocean bottom and
>>>>>> move around looking for food, a complete, or open, digestive system
>>>>>> with a seperate mouth and anus became advantageous. Once it started
>>>>>> moving mouth first through the world, sensory organs like eyes or
>>>>>> antennae became advantageous; Moreover, those creatures which
>>>>>> evolved
>>>>>> sensory organs like taste-buds and eyes near their mouths, as
>>>>>> opposed
>>>>>> to near their anus, had a survival advantage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once an organism had a concentration of senses on its rostral or
>>>>>> front
>>>>>> end, that end became differentiated from the caudal or rear end of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> organism. The cluster of sensory organs became a rudimentary head.
>>>>>> As
>>>>>> part of that differentiation called encephalization, it became
>>>>>> advantageous for that organism to develop an organ to process the
>>>>>> sensory information and locate it near the sense organs. The organ I
>>>>>> speak of began as a small nerve cluster. As successive generations
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the organism started moving through the environment faster, sensing
>>>>>> and avoiding danger, finding food and resources, weathering natural
>>>>>> disasters and extinction events, and generally leading more
>>>>>> complicated lives, it finally evolved into the conscious brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > The same, I believe, is true for AI. It is unavoidable when we
>>>>>> create
>>>>>> > machines of certain abilities, and I believe existing software is
>>>>>> already
>>>>>> > conscious. For example, my open source project on artificial
>>>>>> sentience
>>>>>> > could be such an example: https://github.com/jasonkresch/bots
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I agree. These AI learned how to play soccer/football on their
>>>>>> own. They are certainly conscious of one another, the ball, and
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> goals and that consciousness allows some very complex goal-seeking
>>>>>> behavior to emerge. By the CAP, these AI agents in the following
>>>>>> video
>>>>>> presentation of a recent Science paper by Lui et al.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHMwq9pv7mg&t=10s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some might object because the consciousness is expressed within a
>>>>>> virtual setting. But that's all right because Google built bodies
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the little guys:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbyQcCT6890
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you push one over, they stand right back up. So yeah, the CAP
>>>>>> says
>>>>>> they are rudimentarily conscious because they display causal
>>>>>> awareness
>>>>>> and rational action. They lie somewhere between thermostats and
>>>>>> humans
>>>>>> on the consciousness scale. Someday, their consciousness may far
>>>>>> surpass ours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stuart LaForge
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230702/f765c19f/attachment.htm>