4 ms·

Your example makes sense. But your last paragraph is precisely why its grasping with the most simple and largest of solutions. Id expect the consciousness sim

Your example makes sense. But your last paragraph is precisely why its grasping with the most simple and largest of solutions. Id expect the consciousness simulating robot to contain such a fact generator, not some brute force word combiner algorithm. In other words, it'd have a knowledge/concept/argument/etc network. I recognize the grandparent poster mentioned something about having enough if statements, but yea, thats not how its going to work.

Houshalter 10y ago
The giant lookup table is objectively not conscious. I mean it has no internal state even. That is why giant lookup tables are often used as examples of processes which appear conscious but aren't. But what happens when you start compressing that lookup table to an algorithm which is much smaller and produces the same output? It will almost certainly gain a complicated internal state. As you make it smaller and smaller to get to a reasonable size, it gets more like an actual human brain. It will no longer be a static program - it will have to "learn" from experience and data. That would save a lot of hardcoded rules. Eventually you will have the smallest possible program that produces the same output exactly. And it will probably be a perfect simulation of a human brain (if that is what you are trying to imitate.) It will produce exactly the same output as a human, and run exactly the same internal algorithm as a human. And now, how on Earth can you say it's not conscious?
- NobleLie 10y ago
  Because it's a possibility that consciousness is not merely observable actions or even internal thoughts (the "output")... but the feelings which guide/cause those actions (where feelings are not defined as an algorithm or computation) So even if a robot and human had the same input-outmap mapping, one could be "coded" by "consciousness", the other by whatever humans invent as an algorithm. Maybe they will be identical, maybe they wont be. Im certainly not sure.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    >Because it's a possibility that consciousness is not merely observable actions or even internal thoughts (the "output")... but the feelings which guide/cause those actions... If it's actually "caused" by something, then that something must be a physical process which could be simulated. E.g. imagine there is some law of physics that says brains in a certain configuration will say they "feel consciousness" or whatever. That would be a real physical law we could simulate in a computer, and create a simulated brain which behaves exactly the same way. If our behavior isn't caused by anything, if "consciousness" is casually disconnected from the world we live in, then it's irrelevant. It doesn't explain our behavior in any way, or have anything to do with us.

Houshalter 10y ago

The giant lookup table is objectively not conscious. I mean it has no internal state even. That is why giant lookup tables are often used as examples of processes which appear conscious but aren't. But what happens when you start compressing that lookup table to an algorithm which is much smaller and produces the same output? It will almost certainly gain a complicated internal state. As you make it smaller and smaller to get to a reasonable size, it gets more like an actual human brain. It will no longer be a static program - it will have to "learn" from experience and data. That would save a lot of hardcoded rules. Eventually you will have the smallest possible program that produces the same output exactly. And it will probably be a perfect simulation of a human brain (if that is what you are trying to imitate.) It will produce exactly the same output as a human, and run exactly the same internal algorithm as a human. And now, how on Earth can you say it's not conscious?

NobleLie 10y ago
Because it's a possibility that consciousness is not merely observable actions or even internal thoughts (the "output")... but the feelings which guide/cause those actions (where feelings are not defined as an algorithm or computation) So even if a robot and human had the same input-outmap mapping, one could be "coded" by "consciousness", the other by whatever humans invent as an algorithm. Maybe they will be identical, maybe they wont be. Im certainly not sure.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  >Because it's a possibility that consciousness is not merely observable actions or even internal thoughts (the "output")... but the feelings which guide/cause those actions... If it's actually "caused" by something, then that something must be a physical process which could be simulated. E.g. imagine there is some law of physics that says brains in a certain configuration will say they "feel consciousness" or whatever. That would be a real physical law we could simulate in a computer, and create a simulated brain which behaves exactly the same way. If our behavior isn't caused by anything, if "consciousness" is casually disconnected from the world we live in, then it's irrelevant. It doesn't explain our behavior in any way, or have anything to do with us.