On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:55 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 7:08:30 PM UTC+2, Jason wrote: >> >> For the present discussion/question, I want to ignore the testable >> implications of computationalism on physical law, and instead focus on the >> following idea: >> >> "How can we know if a robot is conscious?" >> >> Let's say there are two brains, one biological and one an exact >> computational emulation, meaning exact functional equivalence. Then let's >> say we can exactly control sensory input and perfectly monitor motor >> control outputs between the two brains. >> >> Given that computationalism implies functional equivalence, then >> identical inputs yield identical internal behavior (nerve activations, >> etc.) and outputs, in terms of muscle movement, facial expressions, and >> speech. >> >> If we stimulate nerves in the person's back to cause pain, and ask them >> both to describe the pain, both will speak identical sentences. Both will >> say it hurts when asked, and if asked to write a paragraph describing the >> pain, will provide identical accounts. >> >> Does the definition of functional equivalence mean that any scientific >> objective third-person analysis or test is doomed to fail to find any >> distinction in behaviors, and thus necessarily fails in its ability to >> disprove consciousness in the functionally equivalent robot mind? >> >> Is computationalism as far as science can go on a theory of mind before >> it reaches this testing roadblock? >> > > Every piece of writing is a theory of mind; both within western science > and beyond. > > What about the abilities to understand and use natural language, to come > up with new avenues for scientific or creative inquiry, to experience > qualia and report on them, adapting and dealing with unexpected > circumstances through senses, and formulating + solving problems in > benevolent ways by contributing towards the resilience of its community and > environment? > > Trouble with this is that humans, even world leaders, fail those tests > lol, but it's up to everybody, the AI and Computer Science folks in > particular, to come up with the math, data, and complete their mission... > and as amazing as developments have been around AI in the last couple of > decades, I'm not certain we can pull it off, even if it would be pleasant > to be wrong and some folks succeed. > It's interesting you bring this up, I just wrote an article about the present capabilities of AI: https://alwaysasking.com/when-will-ai-take-over/ > > Even if folks do succeed, a context of militarized nation states and > monopolistic corporations competing for resources in self-destructive, > short term ways... will not exactly help towards NOT weaponizing AI. A > transnational politics, economics, corporate law, values/philosophies, > ethics, culture etc. to vanquish poverty and exploitation of people, > natural resources, life; while being sustainable and benevolent stewards of > the possibilities of life... would seem to be prerequisite to develop some > amazing AI. > > Ideas are all out there but progressives are ineffective politically on a > global scale. The right wing folks, finance guys, large irresponsible > monopolistic corporations are much more effective in organizing themselves > globally and forcing agendas down everybody's throats. So why wouldn't AI > do the same? PGC > > AI will either be a blessing or a curse. I don't think it can be anything in the middle. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUg6XyBiey6-Fgge7orv%3D_kS69tprAwviaKag5w73-8v2g%40mail.gmail.com.
