Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gorddammit t1_ja79c3o wrote

Reply to comment by unskilledexplorer in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron

Your differentiators for what makes a human and an ai sepprate forms of intelligence don't read as foundational differences so much as superficial ones.

How would an ai be necessarily a closed system such that human intelligences are not?

How would an ai be necessarily a passive system such that human intelligences are not?

Why does a designer matter at all?

You're saying the parts cannot be taken out and replaced, but they can they? A heart can be replaced by plastic, you can replace insulin production with a pump. None of these things seem to fundamentally change the particular human intelligence such that you wouldn't call it the same intelligence.

11

unskilledexplorer t1_ja7el8a wrote

Thanks for the questions you have good points. Please define what do you mean by "intelligence" and "artificial intelligence", and I will try to answer the questions. They are very challenging so it will be pleasure to think about it.

>Why does a designer matter at all?

The piece of code that has been programmed in let's say 1970 still works the same way as back then. Although the world and the technology changed very much, the code did not change its behavior. It does not have an ability to do so.

However, a human born around 1970 has changed their behavior significantly by its continuous adaptation to ever changing environment. Not only it adapt itself to the environment, but equally adapt the environment to their behavior.

That is roughly why the role of designer matters.

===

I understand AI as a scientific discipline. "Artificial intelligence" is not the same as human intelligence but artificial. They are fundamentally different.

2

Gorddammit t1_ja7h4eq wrote

It's a bit falacious to set a stone definition for AI when we're talking potential. My basic question is what characteristic is both necessary for human intelligence and impossible to be incorporated by AI?

​

>the piece of code...

currently yes, but there's no rule that says this must be true. Also I don't think this has much to do with 'designer' so much as adaptability. We can design a virus, but it will still mutate.

​

>I understand AI as a scientific discipline. "Artificial intelligence" is not the same as human intelligence but artificial. They are fundamentally different.

If you're just speaking of AI in it's current form, then sure, but I think the real question isn't whether current AI's are intelligent, but whether they can be made to be intelligent. And more specifically whether the networks in which they operate can function as a 'body'

6

Wolkrast t1_ja7i41r wrote

So you're implying what's important is the ability to adapt, not the means by which the body came into existence?
There are certainly algorithms around today that are able to adapt to a variety of circumstances, and to not influence one's environment sounds conceptually impossible.
Granted, the environments we put AIs into today are mostly simulated, but there is no reason other than caution we shouldn't be able to extrapolate this into the real world.

2

[deleted] t1_jac7m6r wrote

[deleted]

2

unskilledexplorer t1_jacaw57 wrote

>If it turns out the religious folks are right and humanity was a result of some grand cosmic designer

I am afraid you misunderstood. The designer is not some supreme being. In the context of my comment, the designer is a regular human. The term "designer" is not an absolute, it is a role. The designer is a human who devised a machine, algorithm, etc.

>We have adaptive code today

I am very well aware of that because I develop the algorithms. So I also know that while they are adaptive, their adaptability is limited within a closed system. The boundaries are implicitly set by the designer (ie. a programmer).

1

Sluggy_Stardust t1_jac49o1 wrote

They’re not superficial at all. They are fundamental. u/unskilledexplorer compares and contrasts nominal emergence and strong emergence, and he is correct. Way back when, Aristotle coined a three-ring circus of a word, entelechy, or entelechea. Its meaning is often illustrated with an acorn. From whence does the acorn come? The oak tree. Where did the oak tree come from? The acorn. Hmmm. But it’s not circular so much as it is iterative because each successive generation introduces genetic variation, strengthening native intelligence thereby. Intelligence for what? For becoming an oak tree.

You can talk about “programming” as though computer programming and the phenotypic expression of genetic arrangements are somehow commensurate, but doing so is actually both category slippage of the highest order as well as an example of the limitation inhered by symbolic communication systems. Carbon-based life forms are far more complex and fundamentally mysterious than computers.

If you take apart a car, you have a bunch of parts on the ground. If you put them back together in the right order, you get a car. You can do the same thing to a computer. You can’t do it to organic beings. They will die. That’s the crux. The intelligence inherent to organic beings is simultaneously contained within, experienced by, and expressed from the entirety of the being, but not in that order. There is no order; it all happens at the same time. Ai can’t do that. Ai can describe intuition and interpretation, but it can’t do either. Conversely, we are constantly interpreting and intuiting, but can’t describe either experience very well. In fact, many of us are bad at expressing ourselves but have interior lives of deep richness. Human babies will die if no one touches them. Ai don’t need to be touched at all.

1