I've sufficiently explained what I care to for you. I've explained this elsewhere and will respond to those who are not so clearly my enemy, thank you.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:20 pmScott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 7:09 amI reverse the significance of it that others take a more default 'relgious' kind of interpretation of it. Thus, human 'consciousness' is just a COMPLEX form. It is a logical definition, not an emotive one. A tractor would not fit in with that definition but the atoms that make of specific parts might qualify. ...or, for instance, a whole bunch of the same identical built tractor was operating at the same time and automatic, not run by particular distinct people. In a calculator, it would be the transistors and and wiring that make such a system.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:15 am
Oh dear. So a tractor has consciousness by your rationale.
I've written on it elsewhere here before. But there is no 'woo' to it. The illusion that we have something special is just not something that I agree with and think it 'woo' instead.
Explain how, and I quote U:- "As such, I think that even a calculator has 'consciousness' but is not of the same degree and complexity that our biology has."
...please explain how a calculator has as much OR even more "consciousness" than a tractor!!!
PS. I can't wait.
PPS. Please explain what "woo" is.
why computers can't be conscious
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: why computers can't be conscious
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: why computers can't be conscious
lol - cant back up the waffle you just spewed across a philosophy forum u copout should not even be here.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:31 pmI've sufficiently explained what I care to for you. I've explained this elsewhere and will respond to those who are not so clearly my enemy, thank you.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:20 pmScott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 7:09 am
I reverse the significance of it that others take a more default 'relgious' kind of interpretation of it. Thus, human 'consciousness' is just a COMPLEX form. It is a logical definition, not an emotive one. A tractor would not fit in with that definition but the atoms that make of specific parts might qualify. ...or, for instance, a whole bunch of the same identical built tractor was operating at the same time and automatic, not run by particular distinct people. In a calculator, it would be the transistors and and wiring that make such a system.
I've written on it elsewhere here before. But there is no 'woo' to it. The illusion that we have something special is just not something that I agree with and think it 'woo' instead.
Explain how, and I quote U:- "As such, I think that even a calculator has 'consciousness' but is not of the same degree and complexity that our biology has."
...please explain how a calculator has as much OR even more "consciousness" than a tractor!!!
PS. I can't wait.
PPS. Please explain what "woo" is.
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: why computers can't be conscious
It might be fair to say that because it can calculate, a calculator can perform a limited number of cognitive functions. Maybe it could be said that it thinks, but in no way is it self-aware.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: why computers can't be conscious
Yes, I agree to this.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:44 pm It might be fair to say that because it can calculate, a calculator can perform a limited number of cognitive functions. Maybe it could be said that it thinks, but in no way is it self-aware.
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: why computers can't be conscious
Woo, as you must know, is something to be pitched.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:39 pmlol - cant back up the waffle you just spewed across a philosophy forum u copout should not even be here.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:31 pmI've sufficiently explained what I care to for you. I've explained this elsewhere and will respond to those who are not so clearly my enemy, thank you.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:20 pm
Explain how, and I quote U:- "As such, I think that even a calculator has 'consciousness' but is not of the same degree and complexity that our biology has."
...please explain how a calculator has as much OR even more "consciousness" than a tractor!!!
PS. I can't wait.
PPS. Please explain what "woo" is.
Having settled that for you, attofishpi, let me backtrack to consciousness in computers and computerized robots (which are computers that can move and sense)(in other words, simply, robots).
If I were to say, as I do, that I have feedback loops that help me to know things about myself, wouldn’t you agree that I am self-aware?
For example, there’s a feedback loop for normal blood sugar levels. There are sensors that detect when the blood sugar is above the normal range or below.
Electrical circuits can also have feedback loops such as a circuit breaker that trips when it detects an overload.
I have many feedback loops other than one for glucose. That’s why I claim that I’m self-aware. Since I’m self-aware, as well as aware of my environment at least as it presents to me through my senses, I feel that I have consciousness.
Fair enough?
Re: why computers can't be conscious
So in your mind feedback = self awareness? Does that mean an amplifier has self awareness or “knows” something about itself?
I don’t think it’s this simple. Pure positive feedback leads usually to a runaway process of ever increasing signal strength. An analogy of this in the brain is perhaps, epilepsy, which usually results in unconsciousness. So unrestrained feedback is not conducive to awareness or consciousness. There must be a balance or tuning. Furthermore, without a this grounding of signals in sensory transducers, awareness will have no actual content. Everything which goes on in our brains is or was the result of some impression made on it, even thoughts. Concepts had to be learned, the auditory system had to interpret sounds, the visual system had to learn what this external world meant, what a wall was, what a face was, and how to tell the difference. This is actually how we sense.
I don’t think it’s this simple. Pure positive feedback leads usually to a runaway process of ever increasing signal strength. An analogy of this in the brain is perhaps, epilepsy, which usually results in unconsciousness. So unrestrained feedback is not conducive to awareness or consciousness. There must be a balance or tuning. Furthermore, without a this grounding of signals in sensory transducers, awareness will have no actual content. Everything which goes on in our brains is or was the result of some impression made on it, even thoughts. Concepts had to be learned, the auditory system had to interpret sounds, the visual system had to learn what this external world meant, what a wall was, what a face was, and how to tell the difference. This is actually how we sense.
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: why computers can't be conscious
I used the word feedback as a metaphor. I hope that clears up your misconception about musical equipment.
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: why computers can't be conscious
Unfettered augmentation isn’t the result of a feedback mechanism.
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: why computers can't be conscious
AI learns the same way as your depiction of brain learning.
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: why computers can't be conscious
Robots sense through sensors as brains sense through sensory organs.
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: why computers can't be conscious
As for epilepsy, you have applied your musical concept of feedback in a way that mischaracterizes the loop.
Brain detects misfires, brain goes to sleep, misfires cease, brain wakes up, brain detects no misfires, brain continues normal operations until misfires are detected, repeat ad infinitum.
Brain detects misfires, brain goes to sleep, misfires cease, brain wakes up, brain detects no misfires, brain continues normal operations until misfires are detected, repeat ad infinitum.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: why computers can't be conscious
Still, I don't understand the meaning. Many years ago I joined an Australian Atheist forum Much fun was to be had...and a couple of times they used:- "the woo is strong in this one.."commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:40 amWoo, as you must know, is something to be pitched.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:39 pmlol - cant back up the waffle you just spewed across a philosophy forum u copout should not even be here.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:31 pm
I've sufficiently explained what I care to for you. I've explained this elsewhere and will respond to those who are not so clearly my enemy, thank you.
After about a week, there were moves to have me kicked off - some actually did not want me kicked, but alas - me denting their faith in normal reality was too much for them and I was banished.
We have been here before commonC - there is NO consciousness in computers. When we talk about a computer 'sensing' something we are talking about an electronic measurement of some sort - not qualia. Qualia is required for consciousness.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:40 am Having settled that for you, attofishpi, let me backtrack to consciousness in computers and computerized robots (which are computers that can move and sense)(in other words, simply, robots).
A supercomputer of the current ilk is no more conscious than a tractor.
Yes fair enough - you have qualia, but not all qualia is required for a being that is conscious - in other words, I could have a robotic appendage, such as robotic hand. That hand I can operate through synaptic nerve connections - but the hand has no ability to sense anything by way of actual qualia sensation. (at this stage - i'd imagine in the future there will be skin\nerve overlays to get closer to a natural hand)commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:40 amIf I were to say, as I do, that I have feedback loops that help me to know things about myself, wouldn’t you agree that I am self-aware?
For example, there’s a feedback loop for normal blood sugar levels. There are sensors that detect when the blood sugar is above the normal range or below.
Electrical circuits can also have feedback loops such as a circuit breaker that trips when it detects an overload.
I have many feedback loops other than one for glucose. That’s why I claim that I’m self-aware. Since I’m self-aware, as well as aware of my environment at least as it presents to me through my senses, I feel that I have consciousness.
Fair enough?
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: why computers can't be conscious
I agree, attofishpi, with what you are saying.
I don’t know exactly what woo is, but I’ve heard of pitching woo, which is sort of like making whoopee.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woo?s=t
I don’t know exactly what woo is, but I’ve heard of pitching woo, which is sort of like making whoopee.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woo?s=t
Re: why computers can't be conscious
[quote=commonsense post_id=488364 time=1610070034 user_id=14610]
I agree, attofishpi, with what you are saying.
I don’t know exactly what woo is, but I’ve heard of pitching woo, which is sort of like making whoopee.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woo?s=t
[/quote]
Untestable forces claimed to have real effects. Bigfoot, god, ouija, crystals, auras, vibes, chakras, Deepak Chopra, Alan Watts, religion, etc.
I agree, attofishpi, with what you are saying.
I don’t know exactly what woo is, but I’ve heard of pitching woo, which is sort of like making whoopee.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woo?s=t
[/quote]
Untestable forces claimed to have real effects. Bigfoot, god, ouija, crystals, auras, vibes, chakras, Deepak Chopra, Alan Watts, religion, etc.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: why computers can't be conscious
I was thinking in my mind of someone that has stated they have just seen a ghost spooking a child - like "wooooo" !commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:40 am I agree, attofishpi, with what you are saying.
I don’t know exactly what woo is, but I’ve heard of pitching woo, which is sort of like making whoopee.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woo?s=t
...anyway whilst we are on the topic - my novel (cyberpunk) is free on my website as a PDF download which does deal with this philosophical consideration:>
If anyone wishes to read and write a review please do so - i've been so busy looking after my Mum of late - I need to get the review system sorted - there is a silly donation setup I am working on - but it is not functioning correctly yet so if you or anyone here wants to write a review select the "Flick a PEA" (a free review - no donation reqd)
https://www.androcies.com/art/Alpha%20T ... 20Seas.pdf