Submitted by Dr_Singularity t3_xuuqpp in singularity
Comments
Shelfrock77 t1_iqxsso8 wrote
consciousness is everything
ArthurTMurray t1_iqy1nd2 wrote
The ego is at the center of AI Consciousness.
Analog_AI t1_iqzi9i4 wrote
This is a very good link. I learned a lot. Thank you đđ»
Malkev t1_iqxssv9 wrote
That's what your unconscious brain with their flexibility and creativity want you to think.
r0cket-b0i t1_iqyqkdh wrote
It does, its actually very close to the angle that all there is is a daily reboot of a memory when you wake up, there is no continuous consciousness, you 'die' every time you go to sleep...
Analog_AI t1_iqzie30 wrote
Some religions actually take this view. Not exactly sure, but a Muslim friend told me this is the view in Sunni Islam. I couldnât verify, though.
MurderByEgoDeath t1_ir0tqlg wrote
Agreed. If a theory of consciousness doesn't explain subjectivity, then it's essentially worthless to me. I even prefer Tegmark's extremely vague, consciousness is just the strange texture information processing, or whatever he says. In fact I much prefer that, because at least it addresses subjectivity.
4e_65_6f t1_iqy2xsj wrote
My best interpretation of this article in a nutshell is:
"Consciousness is the ability to remember your own internal and subjective processes, creating subjective awareness"
But that begs the question, what is remembering? Is memory itself remembering other memories?
That would be my definition of self awareness, not consciousness.
TBH I see more complex arguments from random people on this sub, maybe you guys should be writing these articles instead.
superluminary t1_iqzhfkk wrote
My computer has log files. It remembers its own internal processes very well.
4e_65_6f t1_iqziz5q wrote
Sentience confirmed, someone call Blake Lemoine.
Analog_AI t1_iqzj258 wrote
True, but only when prompted by a command or programming. It cannot so it by its own volition. Yet
superluminary t1_ir09dc6 wrote
I could write a network that takes the log files as an input and runs continuously in the background if that would help?
Analog_AI t1_ir0kxo7 wrote
You could. But wouldnât that still be programming?
superluminary t1_ir0n2he wrote
Is thinking something other than executing a program?
Analog_AI t1_ir0ngui wrote
Hard to tell. I meant in the sense that the computer can decide for itself. Not that you program it to act or respond in a certain way. Sorry that my English is poor. I hope I made myself understood now. Thanks for the answer and patience.
superluminary t1_ir0rewe wrote
So how does an animal make decisions for itself?
Analog_AI t1_ir0woi7 wrote
Iâm not a biologist so the exact mechanism is unknown to me. But it is generally accepted that animals can make decisions.
kmtrp t1_iqzxx3t wrote
LaMDA engineer enters the chat
Analog_AI t1_iqziiin wrote
What would be your definition of consciousness?
4e_65_6f t1_iqziwnv wrote
My understanding of it is the "observer" itself. The thing you call "me" that's reading this right now.
Analog_AI t1_iqzj4v1 wrote
Of course, the observer must be doing the observing. No dispute there. But I was wondering how would you define consciousness as opposed to awareness.
4e_65_6f t1_iqzkiuo wrote
Awareness would be just the representation of the data without the observer.
For instance, you can open a page of a .pdf document, in that moment the computer is "aware" of that data, but it can't actually "read" the document by itself.
Another good example would be dreaming, you can be "aware" (have memories and neurons firing) without being conscious to experience what's going on.
superluminary t1_ir0gq5d wrote
Interesting that you draw a distinction between consciousness and awareness.
beezlebub33 t1_iqxl36d wrote
here's a link to the actual paper: https://journals.lww.com/cogbehavneurol/Fulltext/9900/Consciousness_as_a_Memory_System.19.aspx
"[O]our theory of consciousness rejects the idea that consciousness
initially evolved in order to allow us to make sense of the world and
act accordingly, and then, at some later point, episodic memory
developed to store such conscious representations. Our theory is that
consciousness developed with the evolution of episodic memory simplyâand
owerfullyâto enable the phenomena of remembering"
Iplaypoker77 t1_iqxzj1t wrote
Well I can stop eating ice cream or just not eat it so have to disagree that day to day activities are all unconscious.
Analog_AI t1_iqzipoj wrote
That seems correct. Conscious thought can overrule unconscious thought or instincts.
wsb_duh t1_iqzp74e wrote
This has been mainstream for years. Really not sure how this differs from the million other books which basically say the same thing.
ThroawayBecauseIsuck t1_iqydl3g wrote
Hot take but I think consciousness will never be explained with physics "from this world". It probably lies in a higher plane that we can neither observe nor manipulate because we are inherently limited, not by our intelligence or technology but by our universe itself.
Which means I believe making synthetic consciousness is impossible and our AIs will never be conscious like we are, but nevertheless will be able to solve mathematical and technological problems much harder than humans can.
But I also believe there is a chance we may stumble into something which may let consciousness "slip in" from the higher plane like a one-directional passage (we still don't understand what is on the other side and can't interact with it but some of the contents leak to this side via holes we poke on purpose).
Jim_Panzee t1_iqzm9c8 wrote
Just because we are not able yet to understand a thing, it does'nt mean it's magic.
It's hubris to think consciousness is something special, when it's just an evolutionary result of the need to mentally visualize yourself and a prey, that just moved out of sight behind a rock, to be able to continue your hunt.
traumfisch t1_ir00qd2 wrote
"Hubris" to think it is something special..? Maybe it would be hubris if we were taking credit for it or something, but obviously consciousness is "something special", kind of by definition. If it doesn't count as special, then I cannot imagine what does.
stillwtnforbmrecords t1_iqzpxm0 wrote
Consciousness is just the result of having to hunt better..? That is the worst take on consciousness Iâve ever seen lol
So only predators can be conscious?
And consciousness to you is âknowing someone is behind a rockâ?
I mean, it just seems you have a COMPLETELY different idea of consciousness then I or most people have.
And yes, to the people actively studying it, itâs a bit stupefying and âmagicalâ. Because we cannot explain even the HOW using current science. Let alone the WHYâŠ
Jim_Panzee t1_iqzqg90 wrote
Obviously it is dumbed down for the scope of a Reddit comment. I leave it to you to inform you further about this theory attributing consciousness to the need of a mental picture of "self" to understand that the leaf you were going to eat did not vanish from existence just because it got covered by an obstacle while you were moving towards it.
stillwtnforbmrecords t1_iqzr8b2 wrote
I disagree that that is an explanation for consciousness at all thoâŠ
Consciousness is not âself-imageâ. I mean, self-image is NOT a big mystery lol.
The âmysteryâ of consciousness is the experience of being aware, present, of being âthereâ. Is an experience we all have, but very few can put into words. Consciousness is the DEEPEST feeling we have.
Having a self-image is⊠very mechanical, and really does not explain the experience of âbeingâ at all.
Like⊠I donât think self-image is even necessary to be conscious at all. I donât think a fish has self-image, but they are conscious.
Jim_Panzee t1_iqzsh0k wrote
>Like⊠I donât think self-image is even necessary to be conscious at all. I donât think a fish has self-image, but they are conscious.
It sure has. It is necessary to picture yourself in a surrounding with obstacles. Simply to solve the problem of moving yourself in the direction of food.
Anyway. If you are able to learn anything from history, than it is that humans attributed anything they didn't understand to some kind of magic. Many many times. And the cases where it was actually magic are 0.
Thunder is not the wrath of Thor. And thinking "this time it has to be magic" is not clever.
stillwtnforbmrecords t1_iqzswy3 wrote
Who is talking about magic here?
Just because something is not explainable by science doesnât mean itâs magicâŠ
Could you elaborate on how picturing yourself surrounded with objects generates consciousness? My view on consciousness has nothing to do with spatial awareness lol
Jim_Panzee t1_iqztlva wrote
>Who is talking about magic here?
The initial comment is.
And my view on consciousness is, that it is nothing more than the byproduct of the need to develop spatial awareness. Like shadow is a byproduct of light hitting an object. "lol"
stillwtnforbmrecords t1_iqzx7ui wrote
So you are pretty much alone, specially among actual specialists and people who actively study consciousness.
Spatial awareness may be a component of sapience. But consciousness has nothing to do with sapience. Being self-aware may very well be a simple biological mechanism that emerged from evolutionary needs. Just like all brain processes. So itâs quite remarkable that almost no scientists studying consciousness nowadays believe it is âgeneratedâ in the brain. So all in all, that consciousness is not either emergent nor a characteristic OF the brain.
The only people who think this like you are strict materialists who never studied consciousness, and go on the outdated model that consciousness = mind.
Also, I think you misunderstood the first comment a lot man⊠Just because we might never be able to access the âhigher-level physicsâ doesnât mean itâs magic.
I for one believe we have limitations as humans, namely logic and our senses. We are in many ways bound by rationality and logic, which likely arose from evolution and not any metaphysical truth. And our senses (even our more abstract senses, such as our imagination) are equally limited by biology and our evolution.
Bound by evolution in the sense that they evolved to help us survive. Not to find âtruthâ. So they are at best imperfect for that end, and at worst totally useless.
So yes, itâs possible the problem of consciousness is âunbreakableâ for humans. We might need some âhigherâ being to help us, such as AI (and yes I know this contradicts the original comment a bit, never said I 100% agree with them).
traumfisch t1_ir00v4i wrote
Then it's a very, very, very, very, very quirky "by-product of a need for spatial awareness" indeed.
Jim_Panzee t1_ir07fcg wrote
Have you ever seen Conway's game of life? It's full of very quirky byproducts of very simple rules.
traumfisch t1_ir082l1 wrote
Consciousness isn't comparable nor analogous to anything I can think of
kmtrp t1_iqzy54m wrote
This is exactly the god of the gaps thing.
ziplock9000 t1_iqxq8vp wrote
""In a nutshell, our theory is that consciousness developed as a memory system that is used by our unconscious brain to help us flexibly and creatively imagine the future and plan accordingly,""
That doesn't come close to an explanation.