Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 1

message: To say Artificial Consciousness is not Consciousness is simply to define Consciousness as being something human beings cannot build.  If "it", whatever "it" is, is built by humans, then by definition it would not be conscious.  The Philosophical Criticisms section of artificial intelligence applies directly to this topic too.
What is the special thing about humans that allows them consciousness?  Humans are either machines (in which case the Church-Turing thesis applies) or they are not (in which case there is some magic spark).  You (whoever wrote what I am commenting on) has now to decide:  What is it?  For you view to be consistent either you require a new computer science possibly requiring new physics, or you have a soul.  Speak up now.  Paul Beardsell 01:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is artificial consciousness ''real'' consciousness?

message: Paul, please discuss before you remove something. This definition was a collective effort, discussed before in different forums. In the definition similar to "the ability to predict the external events etc" was proposed for  intelligence (this form was written by me, Rob Hoogers proposed "the ability to predict how the external processes will develop"). But then it was considered to overdefine intelligence, the ability to predict demands imagination, creativity etc, what even may require feelings etc, so don't entirely go under intelligence. Then it was replaced by more narrow definition, what most likely didn't define intelligence entirely though. Because of that this was added as one ability of consciousness. What exactly makes it strong is the requirement to be able to do it in any possible environment when possible, this very demanding and so indeed makes AC a *strong* AI. This also corresponds to my program in terms of theory. The first part was also discussed in ai-forum and decided to include it exactly as it was, except of later change by "195.218.198.164" of removing "theoretically" what I agree with because the rest says the same. Your proposed definition "An artificial consciousness (AC) is a man-made or otherwise constructed system which is conscious" simply is not proper because it doesn't define anything at all, as "conscious" isn't defined and *cannot* be defined because consciousness is subjective term. Please understand one thing -- subjective term cannot be defined. BTW sorry, I restored the definition. At least please discuss before you are going to remove anything. So if you have any questions concerning the definition etc, please ask and we will discuss it either here or in AC forum or in place you like.
AC and C are different terms, but the difference is not only terminological, AC is artificially created, while C is natural, and AC is objective while C is subjective. Concerning what you said about Igor Aleksander I may agree, if you indeed have evidence that AC was used before Igor Aleksander did it. Concerning that my evidence is unfortunately confined to Internet. tkorrovi
----
The external source for your definition is your artificial consciousness forum which you dominate.  That it represents a broad consensus I doubt.  I had difficulty even parsing it.  That an ability to tell the future is necessary for consciousness seems risble to me.  The claim that AC is AI is also rubbish.
I would have thought that you would have read the literature widely before claiming that the term artificial consciousness was first used in 1996.  If you had you would know that claim is not true, you would also know that the term has been better defined by reputed computer scientists and philosophers than the definition you use.  I refer you to the popular works of Daniel C Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter and Roger Penrose, for starters, which you have read, I presume.
Paul Beardsell 14:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: external source

message: Please discuss, would we please try to act reasonably. Defining artificial consciousness through consciousness is not circular because these are different terms and artificial consciousness is subset of consciousness what becomes as close to consciousness as much we objectively know about consciousness. Also though consciousness as a whole cannot be defined, things can be defined through it, ie through abilities of what what are known and objective and so can be determined. tkorrovi
----
I *am* discussing it.  But I can not allow a nonsense (i.e. does not make sense) definition to survive.  
Despite verbiage you are not discussing the issues.  You make questionable assertions as fact without being prepared to back them up.  Who says you cannot define something which is subjective?  Who?  You.  Who says that consciousness is subjective?  You.  Who is it who insists on defining artificial consciousness?  You.  CONTRADICTION.
You say AC is not C because one is subjective the other not.  Rubbish.  Your C should be objectively discernible to me.  As should the AC of a machine.
I carefully constructed an argument which shows that AC and C are the same.  This you have ignored.  
You are not discussing the issues.  I have been but you ignore what I have said.
Instead we get meaningless nonsense like your latest para above.
Paul Beardsell 14:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: please discuss

message: > You ask me to post what I know. This I did. You reverted it.
I didn't revert of what you changed concerning Igor Aleksander, only repaired a semantical error.
> external link to crank article removed
This wis offensive, you didn't substantiate it anyhow. I hope you understand that even only because of that our further conversation may not make sense. Maybe you just should take a rest awhile and think about it.
tkorrovi
----
I am going to delete the external link again because it is a link to a crank article.  The article professes to discuss a program which exists which is conscious.  As such a program would be the biggest news in computer science in a decade one of these things are true.  Either the article is being ignored by the computer science establishment or the article is a hoax, or the article is by a crank.  Paul Beardsell 15:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: self-promotional link

message: Just give your source for your defining consciousness as predicting the future.  Who says so?  Paul Beardsell 16:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: more predicting the future

message: I am going to remove the "all" from the following sentence:
:An artificial consciousness (AC) system is a man-made or otherwise constructed artifact capable of achieving all known objectively observable abilities of consciousness i.e. a totality of thoughts and feelings or self-awareness.
Imagine that we had a device which we were testing to see if it was (artificially) conscious.  Imagine it passes all of our varied test except one.  Is it conscious?  I think it might be.  E.g.  If one of our tests was to recognise oneself in a mirror (a reasonable test, I suggest) and that test were failed but all the other tests ot passed (e.g. that it could recognise when a joke was funny, it demonstrated sympathy when someone was hurt, it said it felt guilty when speeding) then I would say, OK, conscious.  So the "all" is not a necessary condition.
Paul Beardsell 16:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine that we had a device which we were testing to see if it was (artificially) conscious.  Imagine it passes all of our varied test except one.  Is it conscious?  I think it might be.  E.g.  If one of our tests was to recognise oneself in a mirror (a reasonable test, I suggest) and that test were failed but all the other tests ot passed (e.g. that it could recognise when a joke was funny, it demonstrated sympathy when someone was hurt, it said it felt guilty when speeding) then I would say, OK, conscious.  So the "all" is not a necessary condition.
All the argument was doing was arguing for the removal of the word "all".  It did not set out the definitive list of tests for consciousness.  tkorrovi cannot attack the argument by attacking the examples.  He must demonstrate why all the tests, whatever they might be, must be passed.  He must demonstrate it because he insists that the word *all* is important.  And if he doesn't, I will remove it again.
Now, I could deal with each of tkorrovi's other points in turn, but I am not going to, for the by now obvious reason.
Paul Beardsell 01:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: must all tests be passed?

message: "To neuroscientists, attention is a profoundly interesting and important phenomenon. We are constantly bombarded by information - smells, sounds, sights - yet we attend to only the slenderest sliver of the whole; the rest we tune out, just as you tune out the rumble of passing traffic as you read. Exactly how the brain achieves this feat is one of neuroscience's biggest questions, and for good reason: attention is intimately associated with consciousness. What you pay attention to defines how you experience the world from moment to moment." quoted from New Scientist vol 181 issue 2434 - 14 February 2004, page 32
None of the stuff here seems to be informed about developments in neuroscience, which surely must be a better key to understanding consciousness, and by inference, artifical consciousness. If we get bogged down in epistemological arguments about whether even non-human creatures are capable of consciousness and rely instead on introspection to grapple with the nature of consciousness then I fear we will get nowhere, as appears to have been happening here! Matt Stan 19:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pay attention!  Neuroscience vs Computer Science