|
19 Oct 25 - 09:41 AM (#4230336) Subject: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel The last time this subject was explored here was initiated by Amos. The subject has now moved from being philosophical to actual physics. In fact the neural net of AI, which resembles humans, that was developed by a team under Geoff Hinton, won the physics Nobel Prize this year. If you want to learn how this neural net was discovered, you can listen to Hinton here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrK3PsD3APk What I noticed is the truth that much of our consciousness we accomplish without our awareness or direct control. We can be conscious even in our dreams. A person may not be aware of a post-hypnotic suggestion but obey it nonetheless. Indeed, a machine can have consciousness. A physicists view |
|
19 Oct 25 - 11:06 AM (#4230338) Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Bill D Well, Tegmark & Hinton make interesting arguments, but 'machines having consciousness' is not what most people understand as consciousness. It is a bit of equivocation. Post-hypnotic suggestions presume that something- (some collection of neurons in a human brain)- have been planted as a 'memory' that will be accessed upon some external stimuli and acted on by the bearer of the consciousness. What a machine that is partially controlled by AI can do certainly resembles a mode of awareness, but unlike brain activity, it isn't continuously monitoring both itself and it's surroundings. Science fiction has posited 'conscious' computers for years, as in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Turing tests were created to differentiate between a machine and a human. I am still working my way thru the video, but nothing yet convinces me that the standard concept of consciousness needs to be re-evaluated. |
|
19 Oct 25 - 01:22 PM (#4230346) Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Bill D Having watched the Jon Stewart video first, I now am compelled to finish the 1st one. |
|
20 Oct 25 - 08:24 AM (#4230370) Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: MaJoC the Filk People get it wrong about the Turing Test: it doesn't measure the intelligence of the entity (human or machine) at one end of the conversation, but the gullibility of the human at the other. I understand that the original paper said "Can machines think?", then proposed a test for whether a human could tell the difference between a human and a machine. It's also been suggested that Turing was a prankster .... It may or may not have been Chomsky who suggested that "can machines think" is roughly equivalent to "can submarines swim". Further research is in order. |