4 ms·

Everything OP says is correct. And let's not forget that even in the absence of adversarial attacks, even with flawless associative mapping and incredible gene

Everything OP says is correct. And let's not forget that even in the absence of adversarial attacks, even with flawless associative mapping and incredible generalization, even hypothetically solving the problem of higher level ontological 'meaning', there's STILL absolutely no known way for AI to even begin to address the matter of the qualia - how to build something that's actually has a conscious perception (of pain, for example). We're groping in the dark without matches, and there will be many more seasons/winters to come.

pas 8y ago
Qualia is a red herring, just like the p-zombie topic. Consciousness is a program run on your brain to make you think you are conscious. (And as long as this explanation works and is simpler than all the others, we should go with it, instead of claiming how incredibly hard and unfathomable consciousness is.) What's hard is bootstrapping the whole thing. Evolution simply used brute force and copy-pastes a sort of working, already pre-wired, fine-tuned mishmash of faculties as a brain from the previous generation to the next. And uses the old gen to train the next gen.
- Valmar 8y ago
  > Qualia is a red herring, just like the p-zombie topic. It is NOT a red herring ~ it is a real problem for reductionist physicalism. However, because it cannot explain qualia, it tries to ignore, dismiss, and belittle, the enormity of the problems presented by qualia for its attempts at trying to explain. > Consciousness is a program run on your brain to make you think you are conscious. This is a presumption with scientific evidence. This is merely reductionist physicalist philosophical dogma. We can be certain that we are individually conscious and aware ~ but not necessarily why or how. Consciousness cannot be reduced down to a bunch of changes of the brain's matter. Consciousness is qualitatively different to how the brain functions, even though consciousness can indeed be influenced by the changes in brain states. Even though literally no-one knows how. > (And as long as this explanation works and is simpler than all the others, we should go with it, instead of claiming how incredibly hard and unfathomable consciousness is.) It is not simpler ~ it makes a set of presumptions which reductionist physicalism must explain scientifically. And even now, no scientific explanations are forthcoming. The philosophy has had centuries to explain how consciousness arises from the material and physical, and yet no explanation has been offered as to how the brain can magically create consciousness. There are literally no models at all that demonstrate, solidly and irrevocably, how particular configurations of brain matter directly translate into consciousness. > What's hard is bootstrapping the whole thing. Evolution simply used brute force and copy-pastes a sort of working, already pre-wired, fine-tuned mishmash of faculties as a brain from the previous generation to the next. And uses the old gen to train the next gen. A bunch of presumptions and just-so hypotheses without scientific evidence.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It is NOT a red herring ~ it is a real problem for reductionist physicalism. No, it's not. > However, because it cannot explain qualia, it tries to ignore, dismiss, and belittle, the enormity of the problems presented by qualia for its attempts at trying to explain. Qualia has no objective existence, and as such isn't even in the domain of things science concerns itself with; an observer can (if possessed of qualia) observe their own, but cannot observe, test, or be materially affected by its existence in others. > There are literally no models at all that demonstrate, solidly and irrevocably, how particular configurations of brain matter directly translate into consciousness There's literally no objectively verifiable evidence of consciousness or any features it might have, so there is literally nothing to model, and, even if one somehow came up with a model, no way to validate it. Qualia, insofar as it can be said to exist, is simply irrelevant to any empirical model of the universe. Does qualia matter? Metaphysically, perhaps, but materially, no.
  - pas 8y ago
    > Consciousness cannot be reduced down to a bunch of changes of the brain's matter. This is a claim, show the proof then. > Consciousness is qualitatively different to how the brain functions, Again, you need to prove this. First of course define what is what and why they are irreconcilable. We have a consistent theory of the world for the small and large, from nuclear physics to cosmology, and everything in between, and none of them require extraphysical things. Why consciousness would be different? > and yet no explanation has been offered as to how the brain can magically create consciousness. I just offered one, and there are probably countless other explanations. The problem is usually testability not abduction of explanations. > There are literally no models at all that demonstrate, solidly and irrevocably, how particular configurations of brain matter directly translate into consciousness. We don't have to, we can test and weight hypotheses and eliminate them in other ways. So far you have offered nothing that would help eliminate this hypothesis (counterexamples or other arguments would be great).
dragonwriter 8y ago
> there's STILL absolutely no known way for AI to even begin to address the matter of the qualia Who, other than metaphysically, cares? I can't observe, test, know or be in any way materially affected by whether or not you experience qualia, it certainly makes no material difference whatsoever if an AI actually experiences qualia. Discussing qualia has about as much relevance to anything as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
- wildermuthn 8y ago
  You might not see my other comment, but you couldn’t be more wrong. We may not understand qualia, but it is indisputable that qualia provides us with additional data that affects our bahavior. It provides meta-data about those who also experience qualia, which enables at the very least greater predictive powers regarding those who experience qualia, and at best, enables empathetic behavior.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  It speaks to empathy, as already mentioned.
- blueadept111 8y ago
  Pain and pleasure, which are qualitative experiences, are the basis of operant conditioning (unsupervised learning ala behavioral psychology). This covers the massive domain of behavior that's informed/dictated by reinforcement/punishment. So they are pretty fundamental if you care about building something that's analogous to biological life, depending of course on how deeply you want that analogy to extend.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Pain and pleasure, which are qualitative experiences, are the basis of operant conditioning The behaviors of attractive and aversive reinforcement are the basis of operant conditioning. The whole issue about qualia is that exhibiting behavior to which subjective internal experience is usually attributed does not demonstrate the subjective internal experience. The people arguing for the importance of qualia and it's unattainability for AI aren't arguing that it is particularly challenging for AI to exhibit attractive and aversive reinforcement, or any other external behavior, they are building a castle they can retreat to in the face of any observable behavior.
wildermuthn 8y ago
The only solution to human-friendly AI is to instantiate a quaila-producing consciousness. Qualia is, by definition, data that non-conscious entities lack. We don’t have to understand what qualia is or how consciousness works in order to train software to develop both. All we need to do is understand how the qualia data affects behavior. If we train toward those unique behaviors that only qualia can provide, then ML will figure out how to produce consciousness and qualia on its own. What is that behavior? Empathy. Empathy is knowing what it feels like to subjectively experience qualia. I know the feeling of awe when I see something beautiful. I know the feeling of pain when I lose a loved one. I know the feeling of jubilance when I succeed. And because I know what it feels like, I know what it feels like for another. And that is real data that allows me to understand what another person will say and do, and to understand what I should say and do with respect to their state. This is real data, and luckily it doesn’t take a super-intelligent AI to produce. See your dog (and perhaps cat). A dog only understands your feelings because it too has those feelings. We don’t need to train for intelligence to solve the question of meaning. We need to train models that demonstrate empathy. I’m not aware of any research in this area. But Douglass Adams’ happy sliding doors and depressed androids were on point.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Douglass Adams! So ahead of his time. I remember the elevator with precognition - so it would know ahead of time which floor to be at, and already be there when you hit the button. But putting a super-intelligent being in a box that had a lifetime limit of travel over about 1 linear block in a dark tube, made it a bit strange after a while.

pas 8y ago

Qualia is a red herring, just like the p-zombie topic. Consciousness is a program run on your brain to make you think you are conscious. (And as long as this explanation works and is simpler than all the others, we should go with it, instead of claiming how incredibly hard and unfathomable consciousness is.) What's hard is bootstrapping the whole thing. Evolution simply used brute force and copy-pastes a sort of working, already pre-wired, fine-tuned mishmash of faculties as a brain from the previous generation to the next. And uses the old gen to train the next gen.

Valmar 8y ago
> Qualia is a red herring, just like the p-zombie topic. It is NOT a red herring ~ it is a real problem for reductionist physicalism. However, because it cannot explain qualia, it tries to ignore, dismiss, and belittle, the enormity of the problems presented by qualia for its attempts at trying to explain. > Consciousness is a program run on your brain to make you think you are conscious. This is a presumption with scientific evidence. This is merely reductionist physicalist philosophical dogma. We can be certain that we are individually conscious and aware ~ but not necessarily why or how. Consciousness cannot be reduced down to a bunch of changes of the brain's matter. Consciousness is qualitatively different to how the brain functions, even though consciousness can indeed be influenced by the changes in brain states. Even though literally no-one knows how. > (And as long as this explanation works and is simpler than all the others, we should go with it, instead of claiming how incredibly hard and unfathomable consciousness is.) It is not simpler ~ it makes a set of presumptions which reductionist physicalism must explain scientifically. And even now, no scientific explanations are forthcoming. The philosophy has had centuries to explain how consciousness arises from the material and physical, and yet no explanation has been offered as to how the brain can magically create consciousness. There are literally no models at all that demonstrate, solidly and irrevocably, how particular configurations of brain matter directly translate into consciousness. > What's hard is bootstrapping the whole thing. Evolution simply used brute force and copy-pastes a sort of working, already pre-wired, fine-tuned mishmash of faculties as a brain from the previous generation to the next. And uses the old gen to train the next gen. A bunch of presumptions and just-so hypotheses without scientific evidence.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It is NOT a red herring ~ it is a real problem for reductionist physicalism. No, it's not. > However, because it cannot explain qualia, it tries to ignore, dismiss, and belittle, the enormity of the problems presented by qualia for its attempts at trying to explain. Qualia has no objective existence, and as such isn't even in the domain of things science concerns itself with; an observer can (if possessed of qualia) observe their own, but cannot observe, test, or be materially affected by its existence in others. > There are literally no models at all that demonstrate, solidly and irrevocably, how particular configurations of brain matter directly translate into consciousness There's literally no objectively verifiable evidence of consciousness or any features it might have, so there is literally nothing to model, and, even if one somehow came up with a model, no way to validate it. Qualia, insofar as it can be said to exist, is simply irrelevant to any empirical model of the universe. Does qualia matter? Metaphysically, perhaps, but materially, no.
- pas 8y ago
  > Consciousness cannot be reduced down to a bunch of changes of the brain's matter. This is a claim, show the proof then. > Consciousness is qualitatively different to how the brain functions, Again, you need to prove this. First of course define what is what and why they are irreconcilable. We have a consistent theory of the world for the small and large, from nuclear physics to cosmology, and everything in between, and none of them require extraphysical things. Why consciousness would be different? > and yet no explanation has been offered as to how the brain can magically create consciousness. I just offered one, and there are probably countless other explanations. The problem is usually testability not abduction of explanations. > There are literally no models at all that demonstrate, solidly and irrevocably, how particular configurations of brain matter directly translate into consciousness. We don't have to, we can test and weight hypotheses and eliminate them in other ways. So far you have offered nothing that would help eliminate this hypothesis (counterexamples or other arguments would be great).

dragonwriter 8y ago

> there's STILL absolutely no known way for AI to even begin to address the matter of the qualia Who, other than metaphysically, cares? I can't observe, test, know or be in any way materially affected by whether or not you experience qualia, it certainly makes no material difference whatsoever if an AI actually experiences qualia. Discussing qualia has about as much relevance to anything as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

wildermuthn 8y ago
You might not see my other comment, but you couldn’t be more wrong. We may not understand qualia, but it is indisputable that qualia provides us with additional data that affects our bahavior. It provides meta-data about those who also experience qualia, which enables at the very least greater predictive powers regarding those who experience qualia, and at best, enables empathetic behavior.
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
It speaks to empathy, as already mentioned.
blueadept111 8y ago
Pain and pleasure, which are qualitative experiences, are the basis of operant conditioning (unsupervised learning ala behavioral psychology). This covers the massive domain of behavior that's informed/dictated by reinforcement/punishment. So they are pretty fundamental if you care about building something that's analogous to biological life, depending of course on how deeply you want that analogy to extend.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Pain and pleasure, which are qualitative experiences, are the basis of operant conditioning The behaviors of attractive and aversive reinforcement are the basis of operant conditioning. The whole issue about qualia is that exhibiting behavior to which subjective internal experience is usually attributed does not demonstrate the subjective internal experience. The people arguing for the importance of qualia and it's unattainability for AI aren't arguing that it is particularly challenging for AI to exhibit attractive and aversive reinforcement, or any other external behavior, they are building a castle they can retreat to in the face of any observable behavior.

wildermuthn 8y ago

The only solution to human-friendly AI is to instantiate a quaila-producing consciousness. Qualia is, by definition, data that non-conscious entities lack. We don’t have to understand what qualia is or how consciousness works in order to train software to develop both. All we need to do is understand how the qualia data affects behavior. If we train toward those unique behaviors that only qualia can provide, then ML will figure out how to produce consciousness and qualia on its own. What is that behavior? Empathy. Empathy is knowing what it feels like to subjectively experience qualia. I know the feeling of awe when I see something beautiful. I know the feeling of pain when I lose a loved one. I know the feeling of jubilance when I succeed. And because I know what it feels like, I know what it feels like for another. And that is real data that allows me to understand what another person will say and do, and to understand what I should say and do with respect to their state. This is real data, and luckily it doesn’t take a super-intelligent AI to produce. See your dog (and perhaps cat). A dog only understands your feelings because it too has those feelings. We don’t need to train for intelligence to solve the question of meaning. We need to train models that demonstrate empathy. I’m not aware of any research in this area. But Douglass Adams’ happy sliding doors and depressed androids were on point.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Douglass Adams! So ahead of his time. I remember the elevator with precognition - so it would know ahead of time which floor to be at, and already be there when you hit the button. But putting a super-intelligent being in a box that had a lifetime limit of travel over about 1 linear block in a dark tube, made it a bit strange after a while.