FFFFUUUUUUUUUU

[LMNO]

To avoid descending into the morass of other threads, I hereby propose that when we talk about the unpredictability of complex systems, we use the term "Chaos Theory", and when we talk about the vast expanse of unknowable random stuff that is beyond Order and Disorder, we use regular old "Chaos".

[BabylonHoruv]

You guys rock.  I already knew about Hofstadter's work, but I didn't know he made a book with Dennett.  I have been trying to work up the enthusiasm to read GEB, but it's just such a damned big book.  I will definitely check out the Mind's I.

Still, my concerns are not entirely quelled.  Until there is strong evidence that shows that our subjective experience of reality can be explained objectively (or that it can't), I can't be satisfied.

It almost seems a cop-out, though.  As soon as you get enough metaprocessors cross-talking so much that you can't figure out what's going on, you're probably going to get some sort of consciousness.


OMG, Chaos Theory as grounds for consciousness.

Despite it being sort of disappointing ("Oh, yes great, consciousness is chaotic and therefore inscrutable oh well.") I think there are sufficient grounds to say chaos is inherent in the brain.  Neuroscience has provided us with math that proscribes the exact behavior or neurons mechanistically, but the equations become so hugely complex that they are functionally uncomputable.  Any mechanistic theory of mind will have to provide for these conditions.

I read GEB and enjoyed the hell out of it, however I wouldn't reccomend it as an aid in understanding the means of building consciousness.  It has a lot to say about building information systems, and explained the incompleteness theorem in a way that really sunk in for me, but what it had to say about consciousness seemed more about what is outside it than what is inside it.

[Jasper]

To avoid descending into the morass of other threads, I hereby propose that when we talk about the unpredictability of complex systems, we use the term "Chaos Theory", and when we talk about the vast expanse of unknowable random stuff that is beyond Order and Disorder, we use regular old "Chaos".

This is a good idea. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

WTF?

Why make machine consciousness?  We have enough assholes already.   

[Jasper]

WTF?

Why make machine consciousness?  We have enough assholes already.   

You said you were up for "any" program.

There are good reasons.  We need machines that can "Do what I mean" rather than "What I say", and a conscious machine would theoretically be able to understand what we say, and translate for less intelligent machines that can do dangerous or difficult jobs.  Jobs like building a space elevator, or farming the collective rooftops of a city to provide produce without the difficulty of transportation pollution or nasty preservatives.

And they can survive in a vacuum.  We could provide them with whatever information and material supplies they want, they provide us with research done by space exploration.  They help us terraform other planets, due to their ability to survive on mere electricity.  The list goes on.

But I didn't want this thread to be about "why", so much as "how".

[NotPublished]

Well why don't you treat every word in our vocabulary as a Symbolic Definition/Function.

Next time you are given instructions, process them very slowly in Psuedo language

(I am going to get really messy here - and I am probably missing the entire point completely)

"Move over there"

3 words - but that would have alot of cross-reference meaning.

MOVE = Go - a personal command. Go is a movement command.
Over = Relate back to previous word, does not mean end - Go implies movement so Over would indicate a position
There = based on the previous two words, this would imply the position I would go.

.. and a shit load of other referencing.

Since alot of words in the english language relate to each other in one way or another. There are many different ways to say the same thing but with many different words.

So I think try to split the words into 2 different categories, the Lower and Higher. The higher will always reference back to the lower just with some extra commands to save time - and the lower would be the instructions.

Sorta like how C converts into ASM

My example was bad - since using language like that would mean the machine needs to understand and interpret physical movements to, but would the understanding come from the functions behind the words?

Or am I completely off the point?

[Jasper]

I do not believe that linguistics will lead to intelligent behavior, much less consciousness.

By that rationale we are basically sophisticated chat bots.

The point (for me) is to create a system that behaves like a human brain, thereby recreating consciousness (whatever that may be) inside a synthetic medium.

[NotPublished]

What are you looking for in a consciousess?

I don't claim to understand the human brain, but isn't that how we usually think? (From my previous post) - The words contain symbolism that our brain will reference and check and convert into functions to peform.

Heck, sometimes I really think people are just sophisticated computers.

[Jasper]

What do you mean exactly?

[NotPublished]

Well you said you wanted to give a machine a consciousness - what does that entail? Decision making? Morals/ethics? Self-awareness/learning (A.I style?)

[Jasper]

Subjective experience of sensational reality, the ability to reflect, the ability to form decisions and behave with special regard to expected outcomes, language processing, social cognition, intuitive ability to report internal states.

[NotPublished]

Hire a few asian programmers and you might get lucky.

I guess the easiest out of the list would be language processing and reports on internal states - damn how the hell did our creators manage it?!

[Triple Zero]

To avoid descending into the morass of other threads, I hereby propose that when we talk about the unpredictability of complex systems, we use the term "Chaos Theory", and when we talk about the vast expanse of unknowable random stuff that is beyond Order and Disorder, we use regular old "Chaos".

This is a good idea. 

Also, "chaotic system", which is the sort of system considered under Chaos Theory.

Cause then I won't have to change my regular usage of those words. Don't pin me on it, but I don't think I have ever used the word "Chaos" on its own to talk about "Chaos Theory".

[NotPublished]

Hmm ...

I guess lets take a step back and look at humans -
At an instinct level - the sub-conscious would use what it must to fulfil its inner desires. Hunger = eat, Thirsty = Drink, Tired = Rest, Pain = No (Unless your a masochist).

So looking at a machine, a machine that knows when its battery levels are low (The internal monitor - doesn't need to be intuitive) and goes to recharge itself - I think that would be considered a consious act, if it had a choice between priorities - whether to finish the task at hand and potentially suffer for not going to rest or just go back and recharge in its bed. Because it will be able to calculate the energy needed for the next task, and the ride home etc

If the machine detects that it is low on oil, it will go drink some to keep its gears in motion.
If the machine detects its low on fuel, it will eat (well more like drink) something so that it can convert that into Energy so it won't have to Rest as often.
If machine detects injury from peforming a certain action, it will add it to the blacklist (To avoid in future cases) so injury will not be repeated.

Just looks like it will be a massive indexing system in the end - or is an entirely different thought form needed?

Also for there to be randomness ... Is that even possible? Random functions are usually pre-determined and follow a pattern after-awhile unless reset.

[BabylonHoruv]

WTF?

Why make machine consciousness?  We have enough assholes already.   

You said you were up for "any" program.

There are good reasons.  We need machines that can "Do what I mean" rather than "What I say", and a conscious machine would theoretically be able to understand what we say, and translate for less intelligent machines that can do dangerous or difficult jobs.  Jobs like building a space elevator, or farming the collective rooftops of a city to provide produce without the difficulty of transportation pollution or nasty preservatives.

And they can survive in a vacuum.  We could provide them with whatever information and material supplies they want, they provide us with research done by space exploration.  They help us terraform other planets, due to their ability to survive on mere electricity.  The list goes on.

But I didn't want this thread to be about "why", so much as "how".

Why matters because it influences how.  If what we want is behavior that appears to be conscious then Turing tests are the test which demonstrate success.  If, on the other hand, the goal is more metaphysical, then we have to find an objective way to measure.

If what we want are space explorer robots and robots that understand what we mean then a Turing test is perfectly sufficient as qualification of success in producing consciousness because it appears to be conscious.