Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 18, 2017 - 10:07am PT
|
First, Bryan, you said, "and no other alternative is even conceivable." I would say, not so. What you mean to say is, "No other alternative is conceivable within the framework of deterministic causal mechanisms." You are stuck in that mindset, and are limiting your vantage accordingly - in my opinion.
And to Dingus Mcgee, you might get a little farther if you give up on the fiction that awareness is in some way tied to content - be it sensations, thoughts, layers, shells, and so forth, and that awareness itself morphs and changes depending on what level of emergence we find it, or according to what content it is presented with. Again, this is simply conflating awareness with content, or trying to understand it by way of the complexity of content. Or considering awareness to be brain output.
And Healyje, you are an interesting study because you have worked through some of the basic snags in the AI dream, while, apparently, never thinking your way though the snags in your own position - which have already been widely discussed by many.
Most curious is that we all our "way out of our league" in understanding you, and your position. What, exactly, is it that we (including the authors of all the links provided) are NOT understanding?
Perhaps it is worth a few moments to review what I suspect YOU are not clear on.
Per you last post, what I suspect you are really railing against is the preposterous ideas of Strong AI, and your "duh" might be more profitably directed at them. You are an outlier in that regards. You surely know that scores of people still use computational thinking to reckon not only WHAT we are aware of (thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories, etc.), but the fact that we are aware in the first instance. The reckless conflation I keep harping on.
The talk about metaphors to try and describe mind, and the fact that many of this generation is black out drunk of the processing model, is not something you can gloss over with glib proclamations about people being out of their league or not understanding this or that. You can, but few will take you seriously - we can easily see why.
Fact is, it would appear that you are as guilty as the people you disparage, in regards to the dog-eared metaphor of mind as machine/computer:
You said: "It's an idea fundamentally at odds with what we do know about both brains and computers: you can't capture and download an active and evolving biological state machine."
The interesting point, to me, about the metaphor discussion is that it makes clear how enmeshed we are with two fixed orientations per looking at mind. One, that we can "understand" what consciousness itself is by way of physical causal factors - and you can describe causation a million different ways - and two, that consciousness, itself, can be understood entirely as the output of a mechanism. Or in your language, as the product of a biomachine. And as a machine (returning to Dryfus), it of course is beholden to rules and predictive laws, which by definition it must be.
There are several points worth mentioning in this regards, per the normal thinking about these issues and the biomachine model.
First, when I suggest that there might be another way, another metaphor to look at consciousness, people seek to put me on the spot in terms of providing "evidence" or proof of my notions. Fused as they are to the biomachine or computer model, what they are really asking for is some unimaginable explanation that will satisfy their questions about causation and mechanisms. Their usual default position is that if we are to scrap the causal/biomechanism metaphor, that only leaves us with God. But the God they are imagining, and harking to in jest, is a God who functions as a mechanism, who magically effects physical causal influence. This is, God in this regards is simply a bait and switch for interlocked causation issuing from a physical mechanism. People used to laugh at the old duffers who talked about "ether" as a kind of carrier or scrim in which physical reality emerged and through which it was sustained. Now we have the "field" metaphor. A hundred years from now we will have something else - of that we may be sure.
Your model, it seems, is just as beholden to the mechanistic metaphor as the very people you chide, for when you say you "can't capture and download an active and evolving biological state machine," one has to think that if you could, that if some future Dr. Frankenstein manages to do so 10,000 years in the future, consciousness could be mechanically "created." If not, it is magic.
That is, the biomachine model seems always to hold out the hope that consciousness is just a matter of getting the cogs and pulleys and Johnson rods arranged just so, and that once you do, it is axiomatic that your biomachine will be conscious.
You're right in saying that even the best replica would not be the person from which you drew the source data, the individual consciousness your are duplicating, because you'd also have to replicate all the experiential inputs that conditioned the "person" in the first place. In this regards, we are all a one-off.
But again, at the core of the biomachine model still lurks the hope, at least in theory, that consciousness itself (NOT a particular consciousness, say yours) might be created if you only got the machine engineered just so. If you believe otherwise, say so, and tell us why.
Another interesting point you raise, though indirectly, is the argument Searle made about the difference between replication (model) and duplication. That is, we can digitally replicate a fire on a computer, but said "fire" is not going to burn the lab down because "replication is not duplication." The digital fire simply does not burn.
You raise the old point that we can't actually duplicate a given brain owing to our inability to recruit the many factors outside of the "biomachine" that made it distinctly what it is. But again, while you rule out the possibility of duplicating Ed's brain/consciousness, say, your thinking - or so it seems to me - does not rule out the possibility of someday building a machine that is self-aware. It just won't be Ed. It will be Hal or Ava (the vixen from Ex-Machina).
In this regards, aren't you just another wannabe Dr. Frankenstein, whose deepest hope and strongest conviction (based on the "evidence") is that someday, near or far, you or someone like you, once you have the data and engineering wherewithall, will "create" a conscious machine?
"It's alive!"
Mercy....
To me, this the biomachine model betrays the same basic position, hopes and dreams as the other physicalists and AI geeks: If it's a machine, we can build it. We can't build THAT ONE, in terms of identity and memory and so forth, but nevertheless a machine is a machine is a machine, and every aspect of said machine can be understood and modeled by way of mechanistic, physical causation - once we have the physical data.
Point is, the causal/mechanistic metaphor seems to have you by the short hairs, and I'm sure you can supply many reasons (evidence) to cling to it. And those reasons will tell us much about the generation of conscious content. But I suspect they will tell us nothing about being conscious in the first place, or what consciousness that really is - beyond mechanical functioning.
Of course there is a chance that I have misrepresented your position. Perhaps you are not holding out hope that causation and mechanisms are NOT the keys to understanding consciousness, that once we have these licked, a conscious machine is immediately forthcoming once the technology is up to speed.
Lastly, a few words from a genuine computer expert on AI:
Stuart Russell, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach., had this to say about AI in modern films.
Per the idea that somehow human consciousness can be extracted from a human brain and replicated on a chip—which is a major theme in the movie. “It’s pure speculation that has no basis in fact whatsoever,” Russell says. “It’s nonsense.” That strikes a blow to the idea, popularized by futurist Ray Kurzweil, that we’ll one day be able to upload our consciousness into computers, granting us immortality, adds Randy Goebel, a computer scientist at the University of Alberta in Canada who studies the theory and application of intelligent systems. “Kurzweil is just plain wrong.”
Says Russell.
“I don’t think anyone’s going to crack consciousness—at least not absent a major conceptual breakthrough,” he says. “It’s not going to come from programming; it’s going to come from a complete philosophical conception of what we’re talking about.” The problem, Russell says, is that we don’t understand the origins of our own consciousness well enough to program one. “Nobody in AI is working on building conscious machines because we just have nothing to go on,” he says. “We just don’t have a clue about what to do.”
To my way of thinking, the lack of clues is because "clues," as they are currently conceived by most, come in the form of causal, physical mechanisms. Even though this approach has left leading AI experts with absolutely nothing to go on per consciousness, many stay the same out rutted course. What is needed, in my opinion, is what Russell has suggested: a "major conceptual breakthrough."
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 10:22am PT
|
A Happy Father's Day to you dad,
( to the nature of the adds, all that has been posted is a full frontal attack on my thinking but that is not my chore to share here.)
Big Daddy Largo, John, I can not let stand for one more day the way that the detractors are getting away with bashing your Eminently Superior tome on alll things Rock Climbing anchors,
Do it your self or task a capable surrogate to respond for you . . .
The thread From ' The Reject':
https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/113169933/climbing-anchors-by-john-long-and-bob-gaines-outdated
EDIT : 2:30 est,
done and done
g'd, on-ya mate!
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 11:37am PT
|
Largo, I have a question for you. Excuse me for asking it in a roundabout way, but I don't want the question to be framed in complete abstractions.
Both my father-in-law and a friend suffered from degenerative brain problems. Medical science was at a loss (MRIs can detect loss of brain tissue but little else). Almost nothing was understood (in terms of diagnosis and treatment) and the only thing medical science had to offer was fiddling around with different medications (which did seems to help some). Anyways, eventually my father-in-law died although my friend is still alive. He has an almost complete disconnect to the world and is barely functional, although his condition has stabilized. In ordinary terms I would say his mind is all but gone (i.e. his consciousness has almost been destroyed).
My wife recently also had some problems. To begin with, she lost her sense of smell (four years ago). When the first diagnosis and treatment didn't produce effects, she stopped pursuing therapy (a mistake?). In retrospect, we can both see there were subtle changes in mood and personality over the past few years. Last year things got worse and there were a couple of worrisome incidents. In one case she lost consciousness while walking, stumbled along for about 20 feet, sat down and then regained consciousness. For the rest of the day she felt dizzy and nauseated. After the second incident, we decided it was time for a full neurological study (God bless the MRI!). The doctors found a large tumor (benignant - a meningioma) sitting on her frontal lobe. It was so big it was "causing" edema in the surrounding areas of the brain and convulsions were an imminent possibility. The tumor needed to be removed immediately. The operation was a complete success and now (six months later) she is fine. Even more: she is back to her old self and we are off to my home climbing gym for a sesh, when I finish this post (it's winter in Balcarce). During the surgery it was discovered that the tumor was born in the olfactory nerve and it had been growing for four years.
Anyways, it seems to me that I "understand" these events because of this so-called " the causal/biomechanism metaphor". My wife loses her sense of smell, her moods change, then she loses consciousness while walking. A big tumor is found in her brain that "causes" these problems. When the tumor is removed, the problems go away (or in the case of the loss of smell, the problem is "explained").
I'm curious how this stuff fits into your world view, where there seems to be physical causes and consciousness but never the twain shall meet
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 11:51am PT
|
Largo,
you have a good loggerheaded approach to beat your opponent down. Keep trying
Sensing precedes awareness. Awareness is one of the mind's shells that begins a level after sensing. You add something to sensing to say or feel you are aware.
You seemed to be so obsessed with your beholden idea of awareness that you cannot see this order of generation.
Again how about some real evidence to counter my premise or bolster yours? Please no philosophical jargon that argues from no evidence.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 18, 2017 - 12:33pm PT
|
Sensing precedes awareness. Awareness is one of the mind's shells that begins a level after sensing. You add something to sensing to say or feel you are aware.
You seemed to be so obsessed with your beholden idea of awareness that you cannot see this order of generation.
Again how about some real evidence to counter my premise or bolster yours? Please no philosophical jargon that argues from no evidence.
-
Dingus, by virtue of what process or experience have you decided to declare that "sensing precedes awareness." Is this a take derived from time spent looking directly at what awareness IS, as you experience it directly, or is this a discursive take cobbled together from a 3rd person perspective per looking at awareness as the output of a biomachine which "does" and executes functions, like producing awareness relative to content?
The comment, "sensing precedes awareness" is also terribly muddled, IMO. Why, because the language is not exact. I've said that (IMO) the biggest hurdle to understanding what awareness IS, is to conflate it with content. A different way to misrepresent awareness is to suggest that it is created or recruited by way of some other discrete function - in your example, the curious "sensing."
One wonders what you are really saying here.
My sense of it is that you are looking at awareness as a function that manifests relative to biological or neurological necessity, or is cued to switch "on" by way of a physical function, in this case, "sensing."
Now ask yourself: "What is the difference between the light sensor in my backyard, which switches a light on with the gadget "senses" motion, and the way a human being consciously experiences the same movement. In the parlance used in differentiating the two, the gadget does "machine registration," while the human is aware of the motion. In your belief - if I'm hearing you correctly - the motion is biologically or neurologically registered in the body, which cues the awareness function.
The bottom falls out of your model when there is no motion in the backyard, and while the gadget is no longer "sensing" anything, the human is still aware.
That is - in your belief, nothing to sense, no awareness. Put differently, no content (sensations, feelings, thoughts, memories, or "inputs"), no awareness.
Ergo, you have once again simply conflated content with awareness, or tied the existence of awareness to the physical arising of neurological pertubations in the body.
Going a little deeper, I wonder to what extent you have actually conflated sensing with awareness. From a third person perspective, you might conclude that the body does a lot of "sensing" (machine registration, which it does in spades) outside of our awareness, and which never reaches the level of conscious content, and that when we ARE aware of something, it is always preceded by physical sensing (registering) by our unconscious bodies.
What you have pointed out here, quite unwittingly, is the mysterious process by which some physical phenomenon enters the field of awareness and some does not. If consciousness is the interface of awareness with content, then evolution has apparently decided that it will present some but not much of our physical phenomena to awareness.
You're misstep, IMO, is in believing that awareness is somehow triggered by, preceded by, and is contingent upon the content which the brain offers up to awareness.
Lastly, you might look into what the difference between that sensor I have in my back yard, and the nature of your own awareness. That might help clear it up for you.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:05pm PT
|
Largo,
simple primitive organism likely begin with a nervous system that had sensors and actuators. Much like our present brain still does with our unconscious somatic processes. The brain senses processes in its body and when they get to far off course it actuates mechanisms to stabilize those processes.
It seem you conflate awareness with/as something to make more of it than it is and that is why you stumble on such difficulties describing how it might proceed. Please take a careful look at awareness. It is a shell or script that we make with our minds from our feelings. e.g. An organism senses overeating. Its stomach is tight. The feeling comes from its over stretched muscles seeking relaxation. Golgi apparatus overload? Next, Through Up, now feel relaxed. This brain operation can be done without some primitive organism thinking it needs awareness. Sensing does not need awareness.
There is likely is a difference between what the sensor senses and how the brain generates the flux of recursive processes that becomes feelings which I call sensing.
There seems to be some research that supports the idea that the brains sends signal back to the body sort of recursively. It is evident that you do not understand this research to suggest the process I am suggesting is like the sensor in your backyard. There are very few similarities as it does not have recursion. You would be more up to speed if you take the time to understand what this research likely implies about how the brain functions.
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:53pm PT
|
I do think it is telling that no one (that I'm aware of, at least) has really made any progress in "true AI" for thirty or forty years. Terry Winograd at Stanford also pursued some software along these lines, and there were of course many others. By "true AI", I'm referring to software that can at least come somewhere near emulating the way our brains can make rich associations, come up with creative thoughts that seem to be some combination of our past "data input" with something undefinable. I still do think that language is an important piece of the puzzle. I think I've mentioned Temple Grandin before, but since she is an autistic person with also a sort of very intelligent "idiot savant" aspect to her mind, what she has to say about how HER mind operates is quite interesting. "Thinking in Pictures" is her most well-known book.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:56pm PT
|
brains can make rich associations, come up with creative thoughts
Brain can't do any of that.
Only consciousness can do that thru the brain and mind.....
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:58pm PT
|
I opened up the Koran the other day for another go. On the FIRST page I found an astounding conflict:
As for those who are bent on denying the truth, it makes no difference to them whether you warn them or not, they will not believe.
God has sealed their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering. They will have a terrible punishment.
Does anyone else see the glaring non sequitur? God covered their eyes and ears, blinding them from the good stuff, and then is going to punish them for what he did to them.
Religious texts are filled with this sort of stuff.
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 02:05pm PT
|
Werner: Well, I don't think of consciousness as some sort of overarching presence in the universe, but then, I also can't argue against that position, because I just don't know. My own consciousness seems pretty specific to me, except when I'm asleep. But it's pretty clear to me, at least, that our consciousness does come from brain activity... blood flowing, neurons firing, and so forth. I have been involved with some people with traumatic brain injury, as you obviously have too, and they were not themselves (or even conscious, in most cases). And I don't know whether you've ever been under medical anesthesia... I have... but you're definitely unconscious when they put you under. You wake up however many hours later, and have no clue or memory of what happened when you were "out".
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 02:10pm PT
|
And Base104, yes... who's at fault, indeed?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 02:42pm PT
|
just checking in on this thread after spending time up at Lover's Leap... you all should get out a bit more...
to summarize:
Largo: "...science hasn't explained 'mind' with its current methodologies and it never will, there might be a way to do it but I don't know what it is, and you don't either..."
MikeL: "...we don't know anything for sure, so we can't know anything for sure... right?"
healyje: "...what we know about the brain is pretty complicated, undoubtedly describing how it might produce 'mind' is going to be complicated, but the human brain is a huge energy hog, so it must be doing something good for us..."
Bryan: "...if you quit setting up strawmen to knock down there might be something to learn from real science that 'pop science' is deficient in describing..."
Dingus McGee: "...Largo, try using simpler language and fess up to not saying very much per word used..."
yanqui: "...obviously there is some physical cause-and-effect going on..."
MH2, he doesn't need my advice about getting out... he gets around.
If I didn't mention you and you wanted to be I'm sorry, the "wall of text" defense of a position is a sort of "denial of service" attack...
e.g. jgill produces the most succinct zingers, and WBraun the wackiest one sided scold of many sidedness.
We should have this thread renamed: "Largo plays wack-a-mole"
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 03:22pm PT
|
We should have this thread renamed: "Largo plays wack-a-mole"
NO that's not good.
Largo is doing a good job.
He said; "What is Mind"
Everyone's mind immediately became attracted, even yours ...... :-)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 03:48pm PT
|
You clicked the thread.
Thus your mind was attracted.
Had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, being right or wrong ..........
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 04:10pm PT
|
Elusive only to you and the clueless.
Saying it's elusive to everyone is foolish.
You are NOT everyone, you do NOT know everyone on the planet, and what to speak of the entire cosmic manifestation itself.
Largo also puts in a fair amount of work into this thread.
What do you do Jim?
Nothing much at all except pop up and give a worthless don't really care opinion and then disappear ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 04:19pm PT
|
You said "SO FAR .... "
The mind has been explained ad nauseam, you missed it by 1000's of miles ......
You only want an answer that agrees to your uncontrolled mind which just accepts and rejects.
You don't have control of the reins of your own mind yet .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 04:32pm PT
|
to keep it moving regardless of disagreements.
Yes, that is the correct method here .....
By definition, belief is never sure.
Yes, this is correct, I've said this many times.
Ultimately actual fact and proof is needed ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!