next »

[s0]

HI WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SO WE DON'T KNOW IF COMPUTERS CAN EXPERIENCE IT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF NON-HUMAN ANIMALS ARE CONSCIOUS BYE

[J-Snake]

If a robot passes a turing test, it is still a robot without consciousness.

[s0]

exactly. the turing test says nothing about consciousness.

turing himself actually kind of dodges the question of consciousness and most AI researchers don't concern themselves with the subject at all.

[gimymblert]

But how would you know? you say you don't know what consciousness is and don't believe you can know.

I say I don't see the problem at all. It's about perception and awerness of self, and we can measure it in some way, I also believe it's a spectrum.

By your belief it's not possible but only you say so. You don't demonstrate it.

[s0]

i didn't say it was impossible, i said it's currently impossible.

and of course i don't think i know. i'm not a scientist or philosopher and don't have the necessary knowledge to come to a conclusion about consciousness.

I say I don't see the problem at all. It's about perception and awerness of self, and we can measure it in some way, I also believe it's a spectrum.

the only thing youre saying is that consciousness exists (or at any rate is experienced by humans). we know that much. what we don't know is what consciousness actually IS, what causes it etc. which are all relevant issues to the practical question of whether computer programs can be conscious and whether its possible to transfer consciousness into a computer. this problem is widely recognized as unsolved. and yet youre the one claiming to have solved it or that its irrelevant because something something ANNs? i don't get it.

By your belief it's not possible but only you say so. You don't demonstrate it.

ive already linked some stuff but here ya go: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201303/what-is-consciousness

[gimymblert]

I'm saying I have solve it, but I have a definite belief. And I made the case for it (awareness of self).

Edit:
I also explain the problem with boundaries and the concept of "continuity of configuration identity"

edit:

The hard problem, by contrast, may never be solved. Specifically, the hard problem is determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter

By the way your article isn't about how conscious is hard to define, but only hard to understand in a materialistic sense, just because I don't know how the body function does not mean that I don't know what a body is.

[gimymblert]

By the way I said in the other thread is that my experience with:
- 2 stream of thought
- having character I created jumping at me to discuss my thought in their own term
shape my understanding of consciousness.

The difference between those two experiences is that one still has unity of self, but the second is like two consciousness. By creating characters I create a set of values in which awareness could arise, giving the effect that they were thinking by themselves on top of my own experiences but distinct from me, which is something writer and creators often report "character take a life of their own". Consciousness is a self referential concept, it is experiential right, but the experience is not everything, it's the concept of self awareness within that experience.

And denying consciousness to "subhuman" have always been a fascist tactics, playing with the ambiguity

[s0]

And denying consciousness to "subhuman" have always been a fascist tactics, playing with the ambiguity

no comment, except this is pretty damn rude.

anyway how do you know your fictional characters are self aware? you don't. that you can put yourself in someone else's shoes is just empathy/good acting. it has nothing to do with the fundamental problem of consciousness.

and also understanding consciousness on a material level is important if we want to solve the problem of artificial consciousness and especially the problem of "uploading" existing human consciousness. because we can't model something we don't know anything about.

[gimymblert]

It's self aware because it happen in my god damn mind and comment on stuff I would never thought to think that way before. The latter is made possible because human life is not random, there is cycle so you can contrast. I would say it's a degree of self awareness, they know they were just fictional character (because again it's my mind and I set them up that way) and we discussed that concept.

I mean I don't know if you know how much WTF you are the first time it happen, when a character jump in your consciousness and start commenting reality in ways  totally alien to you but actually make sense, as if they were real person, and you are like "wait you aren't real, how could you have an original thought" but then I didn't created character only, I also created a whole culture with its own interpretation of the world "tamago" (which as a theory of the mind of its own) so they even had ready answer to that XD based on the tamago XD

It change how I viewed creativity but more importantly the self and religion.

In fact sometimes my answer on tigs on "deep" subject like hat, I'm often surprise by the answer and in fact Have no idea where it's going, but in general it turn solid. SO my Hypothesis is that part of consciousness is to make apparent deep unconscious mechanism by tying them with an "identity", the self is just one of these identity because we need to encode "self awareness".

[s0]

im a musician who works with improvisation a lot so i know what youre talking about. ive had a lot of these sorts of experiences where things would just seem to fall into place automatically. when i listened back to the recordings of them i would be like "wow, i played that? how did i do that?" etc. but i dont really see this as a separate consciousness, it's just my subconscious taking over and having better ideas than my conscious mind would.

also its not really news that your perception of yourself can be incorrect and etc.

[gimymblert]

Yes but the difference I'm pointing at, is the very moment where this "unconscious flow" became its own identity and is able to stay consistent through time, and not dissipate like "flow state", ie they didn't bypass my consciouness like when I type stuff, it was within it and adressing my self. That's VERY different. That's what I refer to "tying them to an identity" they get permanence (until I decided to consciously dismantle them back lol, it's hard sometimes when you have "many voices" in your head) In fact it might be failure of this mechanism that lead to pathology where people hear distinct voice in their mind, in my case it was almost voluntary (although the discovery was not), I could manipulate it and experiment with it and discuss with it .

[Schoq]

can I just say I'm pretty happy about the state of tigs these days where we can have a conversation like this without some guy jumping in to make the pressingly important point that a clone doesn't have a soul

[s0]

the most pressing question here is, if clones don't have a SOUL, can they ever be

or is there an alternative way to superbadness?

assuming a person without a soul can't be superbad, then what are they? supergood? but seeing as "bad" means "good" in james brown's diction, would that mean that soulless people are in fact superBAD, as in super evil?

[gimymblert]

now you are being funky

[Aquanoctis]

in the game universe it's random which copy becomes "you"

I was thinking about this a bit, and I don't think what Catherine tells us about the coinflip (the random chance either clone becomes you) is true. Given the way the game ends it seems that for the entirety of our journey we only play as one Simon, the Simon who sits in the chair at the end and berates Catherine after the space gun fires. Each time we are copied prior to that point, the players POV jumps straight to the new body (from Canada simon, to the first robot Simon, to Diving Suit Simon). Yet once the space gun fires and a copy of us gets uploaded to the Ark, our POV stays with the Simon at the bottom of the ocean and doesn't jump to the Simon on the Ark at the moment of duplication. So it seems we only play as one person the entire game, with a recollection of memories making us feel like we've jumped bodies a few times.

Also, I think the whole continuity theory stuff that the characters start to believe comes from the thought that the true observer of our Self (the Us that sees the world specifically through Our eyes if you will) literally matters to no one else other than ourselves.
You walk into a cloning facility, and the operation room has two chairs: one on the left, one on the right. No one but you and the doctor knows this operation is taking place. The doctor tells you to take the seat on the left. They tell you they will be copying you into the right chair. They put you to sleep for the operation and when you wake up, an exact copy of you sits to your right. Logically you would probably be under no strain deducing that because you went to sleep in the left chair and awoke in the left chair you must be the original. The clone would of course have the memory of sitting in the left chair but would know, because it awoke in the right, it must be your copy. Simple I guess. But what happens if the doctor swaps your position to the right before you wake up. However hard it would be for You, the original you, to accept, you would have to conclude you were the copy, and the copy would of course be under the impression they were the original. Why would they think otherwise? They would go home to your family and be fully accepted as You. If you killed yourself now, removing yourself from the picture, as far as the rest of the world is concerned you still exist, just as you did the day before.

Not sure exactly what I'm trying to get at there but interesting to think about nonetheless.

[gimymblert]

Missing is the psychological impact of knowing you are not the original even though you share everything as such. I think people who would go to copy won't realize how much jarring and identity defying this experience will be, it's very likely that the copy try to regain it's place as the original (he is still "himself"), while the original will feel entitle to his position. By that point the notion of original and copy will be simply non existent aside from body continuity and social and legal negotiation.

[ProgramGamer]

Actually, this has been explored in doctor who. There's an episode where there's a gel that creates new living beings. They thought that they didn't have conscious thought, but it turns out that they do because of a malfunction. Even the doctor himself gets a copy, and unsurprisingly, both the doctor and the copy of the doctor are ok with the situation, unlike the rest of the crew. The rest of the episode is spent trying to convince the originals that the copies are alive and helping the copies cope with their new state of being. It's an interesting one, especially since the doctor copy ends up dying.

[gimymblert]

What Are Animals Thinking and Feeling? | Carl Safina | TED Talks

[gimymblert]

youtube insertion is here!

[ProgramGamer]

:D

...

Is search fixed then?