5 ms·

If the only goal is an 'artificial' consciousness, it might be more prudent to consider a functional definition of what consciousness is and try to build that.

If the only goal is an 'artificial' consciousness, it might be more prudent to consider a functional definition of what consciousness is and try to build that. We didn't make computers by modeling how individual neurons perform mathematical calculations. On the other hand, if you want to go the biological route, there's some awesome work to be done. If I were to study consciousness, here's the question I would ask: how do we separate our selves from our surroundings? Patients with brain-machine interfaces (like moving a mouse cursor) start by thinking about moving their arms around. Then they apparently report that they gradually just feel that the interface is another body part. So if it's set up to change the TV channel, they just imagine that they have a channel-changing organ. So maybe you want to build a system that can identify what is a part of itself versus what is not, and it's not just a fixed list. So what does that data structure look like? How is it defined, queried, and updated? Defined by what you can 'influence?' So gradated based on my influence? These aren't just broad philosophical questions, they're more specific and actionable. That's just one possible angle, but it's different than, say, machine learning paradigms where you want to build a machine that can do pattern classification (which the brain undoubtedly does). There are probably other routes as well.

andreasvc 13y ago
While this is an intriguing phenomenon, I do not think it is something deep. It sounds similar to how consciousness or a concept of self is sometimes identified as the ability to recognize a dot on ones body in a mirror (a few animals pass this task). Even though that is literally about ones reflection, I think it has little to do with the philosophical and abstract kind of reflection that is made possible by consciousness.
debt 13y ago
We know a ton about the brain but so little about the mind itself. We still don't have definitive answers to what consciousness is, why it's here, what's useful for, etc. Some people debate whether the mind exists at all. Also, there's still very little understanding of the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. I think building an artificial consciousness is going too far. Artificial intelligence is simpler; it's just fake intelligence. Seems easy enough right? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's intelligent. We don't need to make it "conscious" necessarily, again whatever that means, in order for it be intelligent. I feel like we can build artificially intelligent software pretty "easily" relative to making it "conscious".
- igravious 13y ago
  You've got that exactly backwards. For the longest time it was not even known that the mind inhabited the brain. We've only known about the biology of the brain beginning with cell theory and onwards. Yet we have an entire vocabulary relating to mental states receding so far into the distant past that we don't know how far back language predates using language to speak about mental states. When you really think about it neuro-biology is very recent and still nascent, we've been thinking about thinking for a long long time.
  - debt 13y ago
    Thinking about thinking but not finding empirical evidence to validate that thinking. There's no science regarding the mind. Nor is there science distinguishing between consciousness and unconscious thought.
    - sizzle 13y ago
      "Consciousness is data. [...] The data of consciousness--the way things seem to me right now--are data too. I am having a certain sensation of red with a certain shape right now. I am hearing a certain quality in the tone of my voice and so on. This is undeniable as the objective data in the world of science. And science ought to be dealing with that." David Chalmers excerpt- Conversations on Consciousness by Susan Blackmore.
  - sizzle 13y ago
    yup, mind-body problem is a fascinating topic I've had the pleasure of reading into.
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  The problem is that we haven't adopted the definition of consciousness that's useful long term yet: that consciousness is best interpreted as a property of reality. If everything is conscious then some parts of it are just more dynamic (intelligent?) than others. Physical reality least, plants more [1], animals even more and humans most. Defined like that human consciousness just becomes that part of all consciousness which we recognize as similar to our own. In that view AI is just making a small part of reality, a computer, more dynamically conscious and, very importantly, more similar to our own so as to be more useful. [1] http://vimeo.com/69225705 http://vimeo.com/69225705
thibauts 13y ago
I think you define it very well. Self-sense building is the identification of perfect or near-perfect prediction of inputs based on outputs produced. When I move my hand on the right, the visual pattern it produces moves on the right ... and so on. This is basically related to the level of control you have on the feedback loop. Numerous experiments back that idea, including the ones you refer to. This reflexion may be extended by asking oneself how perfect prediction might be linked to pleasure / pain signals (this is purely rethorical as the answer is obvious and known). What is not to be enjoyed in perfect prediction ? This could be a reason to self-enjoyment (or self-sense might be related to enjoyment), and even enjoyment of other people whose actions we can predict. We are embarking on the path to understanding what information really is, and this will no doubt deeply shake our world. Deep and fascinating subject anyway.
tawan 13y ago
To question what consciousness is and how we define it is a good starting point. And because there is so much uncertainty and no overall consensus makes it seem to be very hard. Somehow I fear the only satisfying implementation of AGI has to end in a skynet scenario. We as human will only accept intelligence as general when it is at least as intelligent as humans. But that would mean that we have to accept that we can't control it for sure. In fact only a machine that is able to rebel can be considered to be general intelligent. So I am not surprised that consciousness is not defined that way, because pursuing to build a machine capable of consciousness would mean to build a possible enemy.

andreasvc 13y ago

While this is an intriguing phenomenon, I do not think it is something deep. It sounds similar to how consciousness or a concept of self is sometimes identified as the ability to recognize a dot on ones body in a mirror (a few animals pass this task). Even though that is literally about ones reflection, I think it has little to do with the philosophical and abstract kind of reflection that is made possible by consciousness.

debt 13y ago

We know a ton about the brain but so little about the mind itself. We still don't have definitive answers to what consciousness is, why it's here, what's useful for, etc. Some people debate whether the mind exists at all. Also, there's still very little understanding of the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. I think building an artificial consciousness is going too far. Artificial intelligence is simpler; it's just fake intelligence. Seems easy enough right? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's intelligent. We don't need to make it "conscious" necessarily, again whatever that means, in order for it be intelligent. I feel like we can build artificially intelligent software pretty "easily" relative to making it "conscious".

igravious 13y ago
You've got that exactly backwards. For the longest time it was not even known that the mind inhabited the brain. We've only known about the biology of the brain beginning with cell theory and onwards. Yet we have an entire vocabulary relating to mental states receding so far into the distant past that we don't know how far back language predates using language to speak about mental states. When you really think about it neuro-biology is very recent and still nascent, we've been thinking about thinking for a long long time.
- debt 13y ago
  Thinking about thinking but not finding empirical evidence to validate that thinking. There's no science regarding the mind. Nor is there science distinguishing between consciousness and unconscious thought.
  - sizzle 13y ago
    "Consciousness is data. [...] The data of consciousness--the way things seem to me right now--are data too. I am having a certain sensation of red with a certain shape right now. I am hearing a certain quality in the tone of my voice and so on. This is undeniable as the objective data in the world of science. And science ought to be dealing with that." David Chalmers excerpt- Conversations on Consciousness by Susan Blackmore.
- sizzle 13y ago
  yup, mind-body problem is a fascinating topic I've had the pleasure of reading into.
mtrimpe 13y ago
The problem is that we haven't adopted the definition of consciousness that's useful long term yet: that consciousness is best interpreted as a property of reality. If everything is conscious then some parts of it are just more dynamic (intelligent?) than others. Physical reality least, plants more [1], animals even more and humans most. Defined like that human consciousness just becomes that part of all consciousness which we recognize as similar to our own. In that view AI is just making a small part of reality, a computer, more dynamically conscious and, very importantly, more similar to our own so as to be more useful. [1] http://vimeo.com/69225705 http://vimeo.com/69225705

thibauts 13y ago

I think you define it very well. Self-sense building is the identification of perfect or near-perfect prediction of inputs based on outputs produced. When I move my hand on the right, the visual pattern it produces moves on the right ... and so on. This is basically related to the level of control you have on the feedback loop. Numerous experiments back that idea, including the ones you refer to. This reflexion may be extended by asking oneself how perfect prediction might be linked to pleasure / pain signals (this is purely rethorical as the answer is obvious and known). What is not to be enjoyed in perfect prediction ? This could be a reason to self-enjoyment (or self-sense might be related to enjoyment), and even enjoyment of other people whose actions we can predict. We are embarking on the path to understanding what information really is, and this will no doubt deeply shake our world. Deep and fascinating subject anyway.

tawan 13y ago

To question what consciousness is and how we define it is a good starting point. And because there is so much uncertainty and no overall consensus makes it seem to be very hard. Somehow I fear the only satisfying implementation of AGI has to end in a skynet scenario. We as human will only accept intelligence as general when it is at least as intelligent as humans. But that would mean that we have to accept that we can't control it for sure. In fact only a machine that is able to rebel can be considered to be general intelligent. So I am not surprised that consciousness is not defined that way, because pursuing to build a machine capable of consciousness would mean to build a possible enemy.