If so, we're forced to infer either that true AI and p-zombies are conscious or that there is no such thing as consciousness. — TheMadFool
I think it's important to point out that those are two completely different things.One well-known test for Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the Turing Test in which a test computer qualifies as true AI if it manages to fool a human interlocutor into believing that s/he is having a conversation with another human. No mention of such an AI being conscious is made.
A p-zombie is a being that's physically indistinguishable from a human but lacks consciousness. — TheMadFool
So a judge might ask something like, what's a good example of an oblong yellow shaped fruit? And if the response is "A banana", that's something a human could have said. Call that "level 1". — InPitzotl
But here's the problem. If we take a "level 1" program and just shove it into a robot, what do you suppose we'd get? It'd be silly to presume you'd get anything other than this... a (hopefully) non-moving robot, — InPitzotl
when asked to pick out the banana from the bowl of fruit, that the robot would just reach out and either touch the banana or pick it up. So let's say it does that... then what more is it doing than level 1? Well, it's not just processing string data... now it's observing the environment, associating requests with an action, identifying the proper thing to do when asked to show me which is the banana, and being capable of moving its robot arm towards the banana based on its perception. — InPitzotl
That's a bit more involved than just passing a Turing Test... the two aren't equivalent. — InPitzotl
I think you're missing the point. Yes, the TT involves having a conversation; but the conversation is limited only to a text terminal... that is, you're exchanging symbols that comprise the language. But the TT involves being indistinguishable from a human to a (qualified) judge. And if your computer program cannot answer questions like this, then it can't pass the TT. Over a terminal, though, all you can do is exchange symbols, by design.I think that Turing meant that you could have a conversation — Sir2u
Mmm.... it's a little more complex than this. Fall back to the TT's inspiration... the imitation game. Your goal is to fool a qualified judge. So sure, if it takes you 10 minutes to figure out that a banana is a good response to an oblong yellow fruit, that's suspicious. If it takes you 10 seconds? Not so much. But if it takes you 5 seconds to tell me what sqrt(pi^(e/phi)) is to 80 decimal places, that, too, is suspicious. You're not necessarily going for speed here... you're going for faking a human. Speed where it's important, delay where it's important.It would be have to access vast amounts of data quickly and come up with the correct sentences, — Sir2u
I'm not writing a paper discussing Turing; I'm responding to the OP in a thread on a forum. In that post, there was one paragraph talking about an AI passing a TT. The next paragraph, we're talking about p-zombies. All I'm doing is pointing out that these are completely different problem spaces; that passing the TT is woefully inadequate for making you a good p-zombie.I don't remember ever — Sir2u
Technically, yes, but that's a vast oversimplification. It's analogous to describing the art of programming as pushing buttons (keys on a keyboard) in the correct sequence. Yeah, programming is pushing buttons in the right sequence, technically... but the entire problem is about how you push the buttons in what sequence to achieve what goal.The observation creates more strings of data for it to process, and make decisions about. — Sir2u
Sure, but that's required to be a p-zombie.The test does not say that AI has to convince someone — Sir2u
...well not quite. The p-zombie isn't trying to fool you into thinking that it's a human; it's just fooling you into thinking it's conscious.That would involve more that just AI, things like appearance, smell, body — Sir2u
If Bob shoots Joe and it in every way appears motivated by jealousy, does there still remain a possibility that it was not? If you concede there is such a possibility, then you are conceding that behavior is not a perfect reflection of intent, and more importantly, that intent is unobservable.
The point being that behavior does not tell us exactly what the internal state is, which means it's possible that one have a behavior and not have an internal state and it's possible that one have an internal state and have no behavior. — Hanover
I can only reply that I've seen people choke on this point. Also, the term Turing Test is a term of art with a literal meaning, so I'm not sure how taking it literally can be a bad thing. p-zombie is also a term of art with a distinct meaning. Surely it's better to just be clear, especially if people get confused, right?You are taking the Turing test too literally. — TheMadFool
I can only reply that I've seen people choke on this point. Also, the term Turing Test is a term of art with a literal meaning, so I'm not sure how taking it literally can be a bad thing. p-zombie is also a term of art with a distinct meaning. Surely it's better to just be clear, especially if people get confused, right? — InPitzotl
Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. — Bruce Lee
Alright, let's turn this into a question then. In your original post, you said this:In my humble opinion...
"Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." — Bruce Lee — TheMadFool
...after which you offered:the Turing Test in which a test computer qualifies as true AI if it manages to fool a human interlocutor into believing that s/he is having a conversation with another human. — TheMadFool
...so, that reads like it possibly suggests this:The following equality based on the Turing test holds:
Conscious being = True AI = P-Zombie — TheMadFool
I'm not after a gotcha or a fight; just demonstrating that there's genuine room for confusion here. I'll take your response as a no, so hopefully that would clear things up about your intent. — InPitzotl
Well, I did try to keep my wordcount to a minimum. — TheMadFool
Perhaps that's where the fault lies. — TheMadFool
Maybe our reports of our own conscious experiences are those of a P-zombie; we're hard-wired to believe that we are conscious.. — VagabondSpectre
What does it mean to be physically indistinguishable? Are there other ways of being distinguishable or indistinguishable?A p-zombie is a being that's physically indistinguishable from a human but lacks consciousness. — TheMadFool
I don't know. What is "consciousness"?If so, we're forced to infer either that true AI and p-zombies are conscious or that there is no such thing as consciousness. — TheMadFool
What does it mean to be physically indistinguishable? Are there other ways of being distinguishable or indistinguishable? — Harry Hindu
What is "consciousness"? — Harry Hindu
So are we talking about distinguishing between body types or waking and sleeping states? — Harry Hindu
My computer goes to sleep sometimes and then wakes up when I move the mouse or hit a key on the keyboard — Harry Hindu
What if someone is dreaming? Are they conscious? — Harry Hindu
Waking and sleeping states aren't physical states?So are we talking about distinguishing between body types or waking and sleeping states?
— Harry Hindu
Indeed, what else could "physical" mean? — TheMadFool
Well, you did define consciousness as the difference between waking and sleeping states, so it seems to be the case, yes.Could the computer be conscious? — TheMadFool
Waking and sleeping states aren't physical states? — Harry Hindu
Well, you did define consciousness as the difference between waking and sleeping states, so it seems to be the case, yes. — Harry Hindu
It's not you and I that aren't seeing eye to eye. You aren't seeing eye to eye with your previous statement.So, a standard issue computer is capable of consciousness? I guess we're not seeing eye to eye on what consciousness means. — TheMadFool
I got to what consciousness is for me by asking these questions that I'm asking you to myself. I think that if I tell you what I think consciousness is, it would turn into an argument. Let's see where these questions lead us.Why don't you give it a go? What is consciousness to you? — TheMadFool
Then why are you trying to determine if consciousness exists by distinction in body type and function, rather than being awake or asleep? I could build a humanoid robot that goes to sleep and wakes up, like a "standard issue computer". Is it conscious? If P-Zombies look and behave like humans, which includes going to sleep and waking up, then p-zombies are conscious.Also, what are alseep and awake states then, if not physical? — TheMadFool
What makes it impossible for a "standard issue computer" to be capable of consciousness if you defined consciousness as the difference between waking and sleeping states? — Harry Hindu
I think that if I tell you what I think consciousness is, it would turn into an argument — Harry Hindu
I think that's part of the problem - anthropomorphism.When I mentioned sleep and awake states I thought you'd immediately know that the domain of discussion is humans and not anything else. — TheMadFool
If P-Zombies look and behave like humans, which includes going to sleep and waking up, then p-zombies are conscious. — Harry Hindu
I think that's the problem.
I thought you were talking about p-zombies too, and the point still applies to them:
If P-Zombies look and behave like humans, which includes going to sleep and waking up, then p-zombies are conscious. — Harry Hindu
If it is still impossible even though you defined it as such, then is consciousness something more than just the difference between waking states, or something else entirely that has nothing to do with waking and sleeping states? — Harry Hindu
It's applying your definition, not mine. — Harry Hindu
Then you mistook what I was asking for. I wasn't asking for a rough idea, but a specific one as you seemed to know the specifics if you can behave like the arbiter of what is conscious and what isn't. If you've already determined that you must be a human to be conscious, then you've answered your own question.I didn't provide a definition. If I did anything, it's give you just a rough idea of what I think consciousness is. — TheMadFool
I think you're missing the point. Yes, the TT involves having a conversation; but the conversation is limited only to a text terminal... that is, you're exchanging symbols that comprise the language. But the TT involves being indistinguishable from a human to a (qualified) judge. — InPitzotl
Mmm.... it's a little more complex than this. Fall back to the TT's inspiration... the imitation game. Your goal is to fool a qualified judge. So sure, if it takes you 10 minutes to figure out that a banana is a good response to an oblong yellow fruit, that's suspicious. If it takes you 10 seconds? Not so much. But if it takes you 5 seconds to tell me what sqrt(pi^(e/phi)) is to 80 decimal places, that, too, is suspicious. You're not necessarily going for speed here... you're going for faking a human. Speed where it's important, delay where it's important. — InPitzotl
Technically, yes, but that's a vast oversimplification. It's analogous to describing the art of programming as pushing buttons (keys on a keyboard) in the correct sequence. Yeah, programming is pushing buttons in the right sequence, technically... but the entire problem is about how you push the buttons in what sequence to achieve what goal. — InPitzotl
Think of this as skillsets. — InPitzotl
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.