Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[R. Steve Walz]

Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean that
some of the rest of us can.

--------------
No, you can't either. You're just assuming that if you say it, that
it means something.

Now if you're not a coward who is merely spewing insult, you'll
tell me what you failed to understand here below:

"Point being that it is impossible to conceive of an awareness less
aware than ours beyond a small fraction. And there's a structural
reason for that other than simple hubris. Awareness is an entirely
separated meta-level of complexity. You are totally and completely
unable to even imagine being non-conscious, it is impossible.

In fact, I assert it that this Awareness is, in fact, the One and
ONLY EXISTENCE! I believe that the material world is produced and
evoked as a representational structure within our awareness only,
and does not exist by itself. Whatever is non-conscious does not
truly even exist EXCEPT as a part of OUR awareness. In this I am
in good company, as this grows directly out of the Many Worlds
Interpretation of QM. When we believe we are in this Life, we ARE!
And when we believe we are in another Life, AGAIN, HERE WE ARE!

Only the Information exists, for which matter and energy are naught
but representational. The world isn't made of matter, because the
Only World that can be Experienced is Life, and Life is made only
of Stories. That the World is made of atoms is just ONE KIND of
Story among the Infinity of All Stories.
(Paraphrasing Neils Bohr.)"

You spout a lot of jargon that sounds like it should mean something,
but in fact, is gibberish.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

I was responding to a statement which was designed to establish that
talking to objects is somehow an inherently idiotic thing to do. I
have demonstrated why this is not the case.

What "Aware" has to do with it, I do not know and I do not care.

Bent Dalager - (e-mail address removed) - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd

 

[R. Steve Walz]

It appears that you believe that the animals that preceded us, during the
"non cognitively (self-)aware era" of animal evolution on this planet, never
existed!

-----------------------------
True, that form of "time" is not the same at all, for instance, than
time since you woke up this morning, or time since you were born, or
several other kinds of "time" which actually deserve seperate and
quite different names, in some future more descriptive language,
and they shouldn't be mistaken for something as real as here/now.

You should take good care of yourself, because, judging by the irrationality
of what you wrote, it could be a signature of a border-line (or soon to be
'over-the-line') psychosis!

P

-------------------------
This doesn't make ME crazy, does it you?

And do you actually imagine that all people who think of things that
startle or frighten you must be insane instead of merely being much
deeper thinkers??

-Steve

 

[Roedy Green]

generic.

 

[Roedy Green]

In fact, I assert it that this Awareness is, in fact, the One and
ONLY EXISTENCE! I

On the other hand, we know that our awareness is only a minute
fraction of our intelligence. We do most of our processing without
being aware of the computation.

Personal awareness is the only fact you can be truly sure of. You can
postulate a universe where you are the only being, and you make all
you perceive up in an elaborate dream to entertain yourself. It would
be very hard to find a proof that was NOT so. You decide to discard
the model because it is unappealing and it still does not help you to
control the "dream" any better.

In a similar way, you can look at the universe in an relativistic way,
and postulate you are the center of it. When you walk, you are
spinning the world. When you turn, you are twisting the world.
Einstein says this is a valid view. Some people try it out for a
while but discard it for the conventional one.


The other thing you have to keep reminding yourself is that you always
interact with the universe via an internal REPRESENATION of it,
something like map, not directly. All you really "see" are blinking
neurons going on and off in your brain. You conjure up your image of
the world from that binary input. Even normal perception is a sort of
hallucination.
http://mindprod.com/hallucination.html

 

[Roedy Green]

That means they aren't Aware they Exist!

Anything that is capable of experiencing pain is aware of its
existence. I think that is what defines awareness. Can something be
hurt? Is there anything in there that truly cares what happens to it?

A mechanical frog might look as if it can experience pain, but it
seems highly unlikely it really would, but I yet have no way to
measure, so I remain officially uncertain.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

On the other hand, we know that our awareness is only a minute
fraction of our intelligence. We do most of our processing without
being aware of the computation.

----------------------------------
On the other hand, that supposed processing is exactly some of that
non-existent representation I discussed. All of the real US is
conscious, the rest is merely the explanation of it that emerges
FROM our existence as a circular justification WITHIN this Life.
The World as we "know" it from Thinking/Science is merely the Shop
Manual. But WE-OURSELF as WE Experience Life are the Real
Consumer-Device!!

Personal awareness is the only fact you can be truly sure of.

---------------------
No, it's the only existence there can ever be for anything.
Without it, there is no "You", and when there ain't no "You",
there ain't no nuthin'!

You can
postulate a universe where you are the only being, and you make all
you perceive up in an elaborate dream to entertain yourself. It would
be very hard to find a proof that was NOT so.

---------------------
That's interpreation, not experience. That's the Shop Manual that gets
written later, the explanation for what we Experience. Don't mistake
the Shop Manual for the Device.

You decide to discard
the model because it is unappealing and it still does not help you to
control the "dream" any better.

------------------------
"You" don't control anything. You are product, not producer.
No Free Will.

In a similar way, you can look at the universe in an relativistic way,
and postulate you are the center of it. When you walk, you are
spinning the world. When you turn, you are twisting the world.
Einstein says this is a valid view. Some people try it out for a
while but discard it for the conventional one.

------------------------------
People who are THAT ignorant didn't understand Relativity.
Einstein said it was a valid view. It is also the only one.
You experience from right here.

The other thing you have to keep reminding yourself is that you always
interact with the universe via an internal REPRESENATION of it,
something like map, not directly. All you really "see" are blinking
neurons going on and off in your brain. You conjure up your image of
the world from that binary input. Even normal perception is a sort of
hallucination.

--------------------------------
There is no "brain", the thing you would see if you used local
anaesthetic and a scalpel and skull saw and looked in the mirror
is NOT "You", NOT your "Mind", it a representation of your presence
in this Perceived-Only World. You do NOT see "neurons blinking".
You see ideas. Ideas are the ONLY things you'll EVER see, and Ideas
or Stories are the ONLY things which ACTUALLY exist. The brain is
merely a story.

http://mindprod.com/hallucination.html
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.

----------------------------------------
I've taken LSD 150 times, quite voluntarily. And
I have no Lithium carbonate "deficiency" or mood disorders.
Sure, LSD is God, but then so am I.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Anything that is capable of experiencing pain is aware of its
existence. -------------
No.


I think that is what defines awareness. Can something be
hurt? Is there anything in there that truly cares what happens to it?

------------------------------------
No. If so then you will need to imagine that single celled organisms
feel pain as you do. Nonsense.

A mechanical frog might look as if it can experience pain, but it
seems highly unlikely it really would, but I yet have no way to
measure, so I remain officially uncertain.
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.

-------------------------------------
A purely produced act, to evoke your meaning, is not what I mean
by mechanical. I'm not talking about an automaton programmed to
emulate "writhing in pain". I'm talking about a full neurological
reaction that is still non-conscious.

-Steve

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Then you're simply having a different conversation than we were.
Good bye and good luck.

If you don't want to see your arguments picked apart in detail, then
you might want to refrain from adding silly details to them.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Roedy Green]

I can imagine a universe where it could work either way. Single
celled organisms are just like little robots with nobody home, or like
little animals with little miniature consciousnesses that do feel.

 

[Roedy Green]

I can imagine a universe where it could work either way. Single
celled organisms are just like little robots with nobody home, or like
little animals with little miniature consciousnesses that do feel.

We can't even measure consciousness in humans yet. It seem thus very
premature to close the issue in other species.

 

[Eray Ozkural exa]

"Zagan" <[email protected]> wrote in message

What a confident assertion.

I must disagree. Higher order intelligence might necessarily give rise
to consciousness which includes self-awareness function.

[Zagan]
I was not speaking of "higher order intelligence." I was speaking of the
intelligence we are able to program into our robots, and limited my context
to that of "comp.robotics.misc."

I do expect that sometime in the future, our computers/machines will achieve
consciousness and self-awareness. A discussion of this would be appropriate
for "comp.ai.philosophy," but my comments referred to "current" technology.

One could say that a sensor providing data to a robot is a form of
consciousness, but I prefer to avoid the term since it is often mistaken for
self-awareness. I refer to this as "intelligence" since input data must be
analyzed and an action taken depending on the input.

I stand by my definition of intelligence as the ability to receive input and
make decisions based on that input, (e.g., stimulus/response).

Current robots and computer programs do this all the time, but that does not
imply the robot or program is "self-aware." Intelligence does not imply
consciousness, and consciousness does not imply self-awareness.

You are correct within the context which you used to reply, but incorrect
within the context of the post I made.

Sorry, I am correct in both contexts. I don't think you have even
understood my statement. It applies to both intelligent robots and
biological creatures.

To think of consciousness as an unnecessary add-on is an outdated
philosophical view known as epiphenomenalism. According to this naive
view, a robot could be as intelligent as a human being, yet wholly
lack consciousness. (ie. like philosophical zombies of Chalmers)

It is neither the case that consciousness consists of "sensory hum" of
input signals. Consciousness seems to be mediated by specific
information processing in humans.

To believe that the study of robotics is somehow isolated from science
of consciousness is another serious mistake. Furthermore, your
definition of intelligence says nothing about intelligence except that
it seems to be a mathematical function of some sort with sensory input
and effector output.

I contend that consciousness is *universally* a necessary part of
higher order intelligence as it is comprised of several fundamental
cognitive operations (such as elevating the priority of a function
approximation process, etc.) which we collectively label consciousness
(ie. I believe that C is a suitcase word as Marvin Minsky defines)

I refer you to Edelman's distinction of 1st order consciousness from
2nd order consciousness and Minsky's distinction of reactive thinking
from reflective thinking.

Take reflective thinking away from a human-level intelligent robot,
and you remain with a dumb reflex agent.

[snip]

Thanks,

 

[R. Steve Walz]

I can imagine a universe where it could work either way. Single
celled organisms are just like little robots with nobody home, or like
little animals with little miniature consciousnesses that do feel.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

We can't even measure consciousness in humans yet. It seem thus very
premature to close the issue in other species.
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.

 

[D. Jay Newman]

D. Jay Newman wrote:

I don't care if something has a face and functions, I do not
automatically assume it is self-aware.

--------------------------------
If you have researched animal behavior you will know that can't
be so, if you are honest/not deluded. When we even TRY to imagine
being so much less aware, so as to rationalize how the animals
experience their own animal behaviors, we suddenly come to the
conclusion that we would have to give up far too much of what we
call being aware, to actually persist in the belief that they are.

We know that we cannot imagine not being Aware, and yet that IS
what we are called upon to do regarding even most higher mammals
if we are to imagine being one of them. We literally have to give
up the kernel of our Awareness so as not to be merely a human in
a lion suit pretending. We cannot mentally emulate them, without
losing the very Awareness that is trying to do so.

Merely because *you* can't imagine this, you assume that nobody
else can.

There are many fields of study that study types of conciousness
as a main part. Even you claimed to be a techno-pagan, and
altered conciousness is a strong part of these religions.

I think that thought experiments have already carried us this
far. We need some real experiments. Of course to do this, we
have to define self-awareness.

-------------------------------
And I also know that they cogitate, but the subtle point here is
that they don't KNOW that they do so!! That knowing, this watching
of onesself iswhat Awareness is, and THEY DON'T!! If they did, for
instance if those parrots did, then they could talk ABOUT themselves
doing things, and their experience of that!! Gorillas sure, maybe,
apes, cetceans,well maybe, but not the other so-called higher mammals
or anything lower.

There have been some experiments with an African Gray parrot
that have shown it using language and speaking about itself.

Of course, that could just be well-taught rote use of words.

I think that was what I was saying.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

"Zagan" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Intelligence has nothing to do with consciousness or self-awareness.
Although this thread is cross-posted, I am replying from
"comp.robotics.misc" and my reply is based on the context of that forum.

What a confident assertion.

I must disagree. Higher order intelligence might necessarily give rise
to consciousness which includes self-awareness function.

[Zagan]
I was not speaking of "higher order intelligence." I was speaking of the
intelligence we are able to program into our robots, and limited my context
to that of "comp.robotics.misc."

I do expect that sometime in the future, our computers/machines will achieve
consciousness and self-awareness. A discussion of this would be appropriate
for "comp.ai.philosophy," but my comments referred to "current" technology.

One could say that a sensor providing data to a robot is a form of
consciousness, but I prefer to avoid the term since it is often mistaken for
self-awareness. I refer to this as "intelligence" since input data must be
analyzed and an action taken depending on the input.

I stand by my definition of intelligence as the ability to receive input and
make decisions based on that input, (e.g., stimulus/response).

Current robots and computer programs do this all the time, but that does not
imply the robot or program is "self-aware." Intelligence does not imply
consciousness, and consciousness does not imply self-awareness.

You are correct within the context which you used to reply, but incorrect
within the context of the post I made.

Sorry, I am correct in both contexts. I don't think you have even
understood my statement. It applies to both intelligent robots and
biological creatures.

To think of consciousness as an unnecessary add-on is an outdated
philosophical view known as epiphenomenalism. According to this naive
view, a robot could be as intelligent as a human being, yet wholly
lack consciousness. (ie. like philosophical zombies of Chalmers)

----------------------
It's neither "outdated" nor is it "naive", those are merely your own
jealous opinions. There is NO proof that a robot cannot be constructed
to react as a human would react in all cases, given enough processing
and program, and yet NOT be conscious!! All that programming has to do
is last its lifetime. Other more complicated programming than ours can
do what consciousness as an invention is able to do with far less
overhead. We are conscious simply by the evolutionary fact that the
overhead to accomplishing our nature is more easily done with the very
deep and narrow engine of Awareness, and its attendant products, than
it would be with a much more broad but shallow; massive high cost PLD,
which would have MUCH more weight, and slightly less adaptibility over
speciel life but not individual life. But tven if it took more than 100
times our mass to host such a huge PLD-brain, Evolution would do that,
if only it wasn't cheaper and better to do what we must do by being
Aware.

It is neither the case that consciousness consists of "sensory hum" of
input signals. Consciousness seems to be mediated by specific
information processing in humans.

---------------------
No, by an agency that OVERSEES that info processing!

To believe that the study of robotics is somehow isolated from science
of consciousness is another serious mistake. Furthermore, your
definition of intelligence says nothing about intelligence except that
it seems to be a mathematical function of some sort with sensory input
and effector output.

I contend that consciousness is *universally* a necessary part of
higher order intelligence as it is comprised of several fundamental
cognitive operations (such as elevating the priority of a function
approximation process, etc.) which we collectively label consciousness
(ie. I believe that C is a suitcase word as Marvin Minsky defines)

 

[D. Jay Newman]

--------------
No, you can't either. You're just assuming that if you say it, that
it means something.

Now if you're not a coward who is merely spewing insult, you'll
tell me what you failed to understand here below:

"Point being that it is impossible to conceive of an awareness less
aware than ours beyond a small fraction. And there's a structural
reason for that other than simple hubris. Awareness is an entirely
separated meta-level of complexity. You are totally and completely
unable to even imagine being non-conscious, it is impossible.

I find pretty much the entire statement absurd. I understand it,
but I think it shows that you have a highly limited understanding
of the physical universe.

Of course, if you believe that awareness is the only thing, and
that you are the only awareness in your universe, that *does*
explain why many of your opinions put you at the center of the
universe.

I tried. You spout a philosophy that is impossible to disprove.
Therefore, whether it is true or not, it is also impossible to
prove.

---------------------
Facts aren't, the only real things are ideas.
Only insufferable boors imagine that facts are more real than ideas.

-Steve

The difference between a fact and an idea is that when a fact hits
you in the face, your nose hurts. Ideas are easy. Facts are a
pain in the neck.

 

[Roedy Green]

To think of consciousness as an unnecessary add-on is an outdated
philosophical view known as epiphenomenalism. According to this naive
view, a robot could be as intelligent as a human being, yet wholly
lack consciousness. (ie. like philosophical zombies of Chalmers)

I won't accept this on blind faith. You have not given any evidence
yet.

If I watch a movie of someone, they go through all their actions, yet
no body is conscious inside the figures flickering on the screen.

Consciousness is a WITNESS. I don't see why the same calculations
could not go on just as well WITHOUT a witness.

For example, people talk and move while under anaesthesia, but are not
conscious, or at least have no memory of consciousness.

 

[Roedy Green]

Haven't you even ever asked the question, "What feels?"
A wall switch feels you switched it?? Gimme a break.

It is pure supposition what feels. The only thing I have to go on is
what wriggles or complains like me.

One way you might look at it is, "The only data point that I can
measure, namely me, is conscious, so until I can prove otherwise, I
should assume EVERYTHING else is too, even rocks, and trees." This is
the mindview of many primitive peoples.

With the invention of anaesthesia, you discover that you can be
unconscious. You can feel consciousness fading away. Then you have
reason to assume things that don't react to stimuli are possibly not
conscious.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

It is pure supposition what feels. The only thing I have to go on is
what wriggles or complains like me.

----------------------
Nope, I can make a doll complain of pain or wriggle. I can further
program a robot to complain appropriately when hurt, but both those
are distinctly different from an entity which actually experiences
it, a Consciousness.

One way you might look at it is, "The only data point that I can
measure, namely me, is conscious, so until I can prove otherwise,
I should assume EVERYTHING else is too, even rocks, and trees."
This isthe mindview of many primitive peoples.

---------------------------
Nonsense. Without cause. Animism is a defective superstition for good
reasons.

With the invention of anaesthesia, you discover that you can be
unconscious. You can feel consciousness fading away.