3 ms·
Lets go deeper, lets create a RNN that changes the weights of this RNN! I fear someday we may accidentally discover (and disappoint ourselves) that consciousne
by notgood 9y ago
Lets go deeper, lets create a RNN that changes the weights of this RNN!
I fear someday we may accidentally discover (and disappoint ourselves) that consciousness (AKA the mind) its just a self-modifying binary system and not as magical as we like to assume... probably still centuries away even if that's the case.
- ben_w 9y agoOne of my A.I. related fears is that creating consciousness is really easy to do by accident (like Turing Completeness) and really easy for humans to fail recognise when it's in an easily-Othered body (far too many examples, sadly), and that as a result we won't find out until after billions of conscience A.I.s have been unintentionally mistreated.
- bsaul 9y agoWe've been killing animals since the very first day of our existence as a species.
- jacquesm 9y agoAnd vice versa. Only they are probably less aware of it than we are. But we're predators, there is not much doubt about that.
- RobertoG 9y ago"We've been killing animals since the very first day of our existence as a species." Including humans.
- ben_w 9y agoI also worry that consciousness may be present in many more speices than I bother to make an effort to not kill, and not to allow to be killed by others to provide me with indirect benefits.
- Toast_ 9y agoSounds like a strange loop.
- andybak 9y agoI've also pondered this but I worry that there's a degree of magical thinking here. Here's one thing too complex for us to understand (a conscious brain). Here's another thing with superficial similarities (highly complex neural nets of one kind or another). Maybe this complex thing is the same as this other complex thing! However - I'm still stuck at the stage where I feel that p-zombies, qualia, the chinese room etc are pointing at a genuine explanatory gap. I know the more rationally minded think this is hand-waving or closet-mysticism but considering nobody has satisfactorily defined consciousness in a way that doesn't simply hide the problem one layer deeper then I'm going to stick to my gut feeling that the other side of the debate is doing just as much hand-waving as me. It's homculi all the way down.
- taneq 9y ago> I'm still stuck at the stage where I feel that p-zombies, qualia, the chinese room etc are pointing at a genuine explanatory gap. I can't shake the feeling that a lot of the arguments about qualia are begging the question. 'Qualia' is a name for something on our map of a human mind. It doesn't necessarily describe something in the actual territory.
- andybak 9y agoI did try to acknowledge the question begging in my comment. My point is that both sides are begging the question. So neither side (false dichotomy acknowledged) can use question begging as an argument to dismiss the other. What's left? Who has more to explain? Surely at this point Descartes kicks in. The one undeniable piece of knowledge we have - the one that everything else is built on (precariously). Isn't the burden of proof on those that want to reduce consciousness to something else - when consciousness is all we can be certain of? I'm not dogmatic on this. I am pulled strongly in both directions and I had a youthful infatuation with Hofstadter/Dennett et al. On the other hand I know my desire to imbue the self with something transcendental is driven by romanticism. So here we sit.
- ebalit 9y agoO'Regan and Noë theory of phenomenological consciousness [0] propose an approach to bridge the explanatory gap, with testable hypothesis. 1: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Sensorimotor_theory_of_consciousness http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Sensorimotor_theory_of_c...