Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 5

message: That is a good summary and it would be impossible to get it entirely correct so I let lots of small issues pass (being thankful that there is a summary and that the general flavour is faithful to that which is summarised) but I am concerned about one particular important circumstance where my view represented in the summary was not what was I said.  I didn't say (or mean to be understood as saying) that both new proposed versions should be strictly POV.  I said that each "side" of the discussion should be free to point out that something in the other side's argument was POV and to make it NPOV.  Which is just a restatement of standard Wikipedia behaviour.  Ataturk 00:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Ataturk?

message: In all this arguing, the article is now very sloppily written. Things like "it is claimed [by whom?] that the fly has a lot going for it." In an article about a controversial subject--and I think we can agree that there is controversy--we need to say who makes claims. I'll try to give this a copyedit in the next day or two. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:26, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be merged. Artificial consciousness is the better article title. I just retouched this article, which will probably cause a heated controversy (at least in the minds of a certain user that will remain unnamed). ugen64 21:30, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
Both versions now have had useful edits which must not be lost.  As I am responsible for creating the new article I am prepared to take responsibility for merging the two.  This might not be acceptable to all concerned so objections should be raised now.  Another issue is that edits by others may lose their attribution.  Primarily it was Matt Stan and I who contributed to the other article.  Unless Matthew would rather bring his own paras accross I will attempt to bring the paras over verbatim.  Then I will attempt to merge, keeping all the recent edits to both versions.  I don't think this is a particularly complicated job, there is probably no need for others to stop doing constructive edits, but I will try to do the work in my evening, i.e. starting 12 hours from now.  Paul Beardsell 01:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Work needed

message: There's a link (Proposed mechanisms for AC implemented by computer program: absolutely dynamic systems) in the Consciousness (artificial) article to a web page that contains a link to http://tkorrovi.sourceforge.net/di32bin.exe, I downloaded, installed and ran this program on my PC running Windows XP. It loaded without error. I read the associated .rtf document but I'm afraid there is no functional description or user guide for the operation of the program, so it is not clear to me what it can do or what it is supposed to do. Matt Stan 22:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: AC Software Program

message: Probably not entirely to everyone's liking.  But as they say, edit boldly!  Paul Beardsell 16:23, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: :AC must be capable of achieving some of the same abilities as the average human 
The example I picked (Christopher Nolan) was of an exceptional human. He suffers severely from cerebral palsy, but even more exceptionally he is a great artist. His genius is actually irrelevant to the argument for AC (and I only used him as an example in deference to other differently abled people). The point is that even the most deficient or dare I say disabled people are nevertheless deemed conscious. Therefore there's no need to stipulate that the AC machine needs to aim at any average, even if there was such a thing. Suggest this section be altered to reflect that the lowest level of consciousness ascribed to a human, i.e. anything other than being in a coma, qualifies as consciousness and therefore should also in respect of the AC machine. Matt Stan 16:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Average Human?

message: I continue having a difficulty with this.  I know that the introduction to the parent section implies that not all tests need be passed (and what was merely an implication I have recently strengthened) this sub-section still uses the word "must".  Should a fully conscious being (not even an artificial one) be placed in a completely alien environment (say being swept along in a blinding, deafening, tumbling avalanche) then no prediction / anticipation is possible.  Nothing can be seen or heard.  Not even "up" can be determined.  If one blinks then AS USUAL this is UNCONSCIOUS!  Seems to me anticipation is but a luxury of consciousness, not a necessity.  Paul Beardsell 06:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it would likely be more conscious that a thermostat.  Paul Beardsell 09:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I had difficulty with this too. I agree that blinking is a reflex action, but the manifestation of reflex actions is itself an attribute of consciousness - one stops blinking when one is unconscious. I think the matter is partly resolved by introducing the notion of real-time response. But this is still a response rather than any type of predicitve capability - unless you interpret blinking as anticipation that one's eye is about to be damaged. Perhaps predictive capability is covered under coherency. See next comment. Matt Stan 08:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: As for operating coherently, I agree that one could operate incoherently and still be conscious, such as when drunk. This introduces the notion of impaired consciousness. I am suggesting that the thermostat that went wrong and caused its mechanism to overheat is operating incoherently and thereby has become unconscious. Therefore AC does require some level of coherency in order to qualify. Perhaps by phrase should be altered to operate not totally incoherently in the real world or operate with a measurable level of coherency.... Matt Stan 08:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree that one can be unapparently conscious, but don't want to get into an existentialist discussion on this point. I was aiming to come up with tests. If you refuse to open your eyes or communicate with me at all then you might be cojnscious or unconscious - I can't tell. If an erstwhile artificailly conscious machins refuses to make its consciousness apparent then I'm suggesting it wouldn't pass an objective test of AC. Matt Stan 13:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: On the point about a thermostat representing consciousness. I disagree that a thermostat or similar closed loop control mechanism is indicative of consciousness per se. Whilst such control mechanisms might be an important part of demonstrating consciousness, it is the fact that the machine has this 'personality' (is it an 'ego' or an 'id'?) i.e. the internal watcher that knows about its thermostat that makes the thing conscious. I have other closd loop control systems in my metabolism that control my blood sugar levels, etc. of which I am unconscious, as do plants. I am not suggesting that plants are conscious, though I think there are others that do. Matt Stan 13:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictive capability (blinking is UNCONSCIOUS) 

message: The horrid llittle paperclip character and variants that appear in odd places in Windows, attempting to appear aware that my search is taking a long time, or the fact that I have just printed a document (which I knew anyway and is why I find him irritating). Matt Stan 21:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: An Example

message: Why is it that I am not suspicious of other humans' consciousness?  Why do some propose a gold standard test of consciousness?  Were you to express sympathy that my search (above example) is taking a long time I do not suspect that you are unconscious.  Why not give the paperclip the same benefit of the doubt?  Perhaps I suggest this several decades too early.  
What if the consciousness on-off switch is found in the human brain.  That through the administration of a drug or the activation of an electrode I could turn (the intransitive version of) your consciousness off.  What if I did so but your behaviour was the same?  The light bulb in the projector of your homunculus's cinema has blown.  The internal observer is blind but you continue regardless. 
I think that as the abilities of machines continue to increase there is a danger that the gold standard is modified to maintain our exclusive grip on what many would like to see as our unique ability:  Consciousness.  To avoid that is why I am suggesting that we look for the lowest possible (set of) standard(s) - not a gold standard.  
Paul Beardsell 05:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just saying that you couldn't drive a car if you were what doctors call unconscious. What you are conscious of whilst driving, or doing anything else for that matter while conscious, is dependent on what you are being attentive to. And one definition of conscious - the latest one in the SOED - is synonymous with being awake, i.e. attentive to something. Now there are warnings on the motorways against driving whilst asleep, as it tends to result in damage to the wildlife in the central reserve, amongst other things. Matt Stan 12:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think the thermostat deliberates. It's bimetal strip just clicks when it gets to hot or too cold. It's the entity that set the thermostat to a particular temperature that deliberates, though it could do it accidentally, of course. That's the watcher, or deliberator, which distinguishes consciousness from mere passive existence, like what a rock has. Is the rock that expands slightly when its temperature increases and causes an avalanche effectively acting as a catastrophic thermostat, doing it deliberately and consciously? I suggest not. It was not the conscious decision of the rock to cause an avalanche, even though it did cause an avalanche. But if I placed the rock in a pivotal position in order to leverage other rocks when the thaw started, in order to cause an avalanche, then it was my consciousness that brought that about, and that has no bearing on the status of the rock, which remains unconscious of what is going on and what it is doing at all times. Matt Stan 12:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Copernican principle]]