This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tkorrovi (talk | contribs) at 15:02, 8 March 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:02, 8 March 2004 by Tkorrovi (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)A totally and completely false assumption:
There is no accepted definition or understanding regarding real consciousness yet there is a field of artificial consciousness? How absurd!
In ai-forum was a passionate debate about the same question just not to repeat it here, but result was rather that it must be clearly stated that all abilities of consciousness mentioned must be known and observable. AC is not consciousness.
To say Artificial Consciousness is not Consciousness is simply to define Consciousness as being something human beings cannot build. If "it", whatever "it" is, is built by humans, then by definition it would not be conscious. The Philosophical Criticisms section of artificial intelligence applies directly to this topic too.
What is the special thing about humans that allows them consciousness? Humans are either machines (in which case the Church-Turing thesis applies) or they are not (in which case there is some magic spark). You (whoever wrote what I am commenting on) has now to decide: What is it? For you view to be consistent either you require a new computer science possibly requiring new physics, or you have a soul. Speak up now. Paul Beardsell 01:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes this comment was written by me and I meant that artificial consciousness and consciousness are different terms, what doesn't mean that artificial consciousness necessarily must not be the same as consciousness, or that it must be the same as consciousness, just because of the subjective nature of consciousness as a whole we can never decide whether artificial consciousness shall be the same as consciousness or not. tkorrovi
A question you leave open is this: How similar is my consciousness to yours? Were I to build a machine which has the same characteristics as my brain - artificial neurons with the same latencies, triggering thresholds etc - and I was to scan my brain, take a backup, and load it into the machine, might not that machine be artificially conscious yet more similar to my consciousness than it would be to your consciousness? Paul Beardsell 13:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The machine's AC would be more like my C than your C is to my C. Paul Beardsell 13:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think that the question of what is different in consciousness of different people always remains open, also what is in brain depends a lot on everything outside, and changes a lot, but then we may also look at the differencies between human consciousness and systems what can never become conscious, like your text editor. tkorrovi
AC forum http://tkorrovi.proboards16.com/
The questions are difficult, but I do not think they will "always remain open". If I understand you then you are saying that the difference between AC and C is simply terminolgical. I.e. Artifical Consciousness is Consciousness in all but name. But you started off with a remark that concludes that they are not the same: "AC is not consciousness."
What is it? Where do you stand?
Paul Beardsell 06:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Paul, please discuss before you remove something. This definition was a collective effort, discussed before in different forums. In the definition similar to "the ability to predict the external events etc" was proposed for intelligence (this form was written by me, Rob Hoogers proposed "the ability to predict how the external processes will develop"). But then it was considered to overdefine intelligence, the ability to predict demands imagination, creativity etc, what even may require feelings etc, so don't entirely go under intelligence. Then it was replaced by more narrow definition, what most likely didn't define intelligence entirely though. Because of that this was added as one ability of consciousness. What exactly makes it strong is the requirement to be able to do it in any possible environment when possible, this very demanding and so indeed makes AC a *strong* AI. This also corresponds to my program in terms of theory. The first part was also discussed in ai-forum and decided to include it exactly as it was, except of later change by "195.218.198.164" of removing "theoretically" what I agree with because the rest says the same. Your proposed definition "An artificial consciousness (AC) is a man-made or otherwise constructed system which is conscious" simply is not proper because it doesn't define anything at all, as "conscious" isn't defined and *cannot* be defined because consciousness is subjective term. Please understand one thing -- subjective term cannot be defined. BTW sorry, I restored the definition. At least please discuss before you are going to remove anything. So if you have any questions concerning the definition etc, please ask and we will discuss it either here or in AC forum or in place you like.
AC and C are different terms, but the difference is not only terminological, AC is artificially created, while C is natural, and AC is objective while C is subjective. Concerning what you said about Igor Aleksander I may agree, if you indeed have evidence that AC was used before Igor Aleksander did it. Concerning that my evidence is unfortunately confined to Internet. tkorrovi
The external source for your definition is your artificial consciousness forum which you dominate. That it represents a broad consensus I doubt. I had difficulty even parsing it. That an ability to tell the future is necessary for consciousness seems risble to me. The claim that AC is AI is also rubbish.
I would have thought that you would have read the literature widely before claiming that the term artificial consciousness was first used in 1996. If you had you would know that claim is not true, you would also know that the term has been better defined by reputed computer scientists and philosophers than the definition you use. I refer you to the popular works of Daniel C Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter and Roger Penrose, for starters, which you have read, I presume.
Paul Beardsell 14:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please discuss, would we please try to act reasonably. Defining artificial consciousness through consciousness is not circular because these are different terms and artificial consciousness is subset of consciousness what becomes as close to consciousness as much we objectively know about consciousness. Also though consciousness as a whole cannot be defined, things can be defined through it, ie through abilities of what what are known and objective and so can be determined. tkorrovi
I *am* discussing it. But I can not allow a nonsense (i.e. does not make sense) definition to survive.
Despite verbiage you are not discussing the issues. You make questionable assertions as fact without being prepared to back them up. Who says you cannot define something which is subjective? Who? You. Who says that consciousness is subjective? You. Who is it who insists on defining artificial consciousness? You. CONTRADICTION.
You say AC is not C because one is subjective the other not. Rubbish. Your C should be objectively discernible to me. As should the AC of a machine.
I carefully constructed an argument which shows that AC and C are the same. This you have ignored.
You are not discussing the issues. I have been but you ignore what I have said. Instead we get meaningless nonsense like your latest para above.
Paul Beardsell 14:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
> The external source for your definition is your artificial consciousness forum which you dominate. That it represents a broad consensus I doubt. I had difficulty even parsing it. That an ability to tell the future is necessary for consciousness seems risble to me. The claim that AC is AI is also rubbish.
Where I said that, or where you find that? I created a forum to discuss AC, I thought there is a lot to discuss and this is a good thing, and I *don't* dominate it, I did never delete not a single post from that forum and likely never do, my only policy there is only to delete post what are obviously offensive, no such so far, I hope you don't call it "domination". Otherwise I said there my opinion what everybody has a right to do. Some places where the definition was discussed were the ai-forum, the Hawking forum and the astronomy.net forum.
When you read the dictionaries, then you see that almost always there are several explanations for consciousness, to be self-aware is only one of these, other is "totality of thoughts and feelings" (Oxford dictionary) etc. The ability to predict was said to be one ability of consciousness, if you think that consciousness doesn't include that, then this is also widely disputed. (I don't know the word "risble" to be any English word, honestly, are you making jokes on me?) OK then, if you argue defining through selw-aware to be correct, then only reasonable option is to have a compromise, and include both possibilities.
I think the question whether AC is AI or a separate field is open. Some AI people want AC to be part of AI, others maybe not, this again depends on how we determine AI.
> If you had you would know that claim is not true, you would also know that the term has been better defined by reputed computer scientists and philosophers than the definition you use. I refer you to the popular works of Daniel C Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter and Roger Penrose, for starters, which you have read, I presume.
OK then why you don't include the facts you know.
tkorrovi