How can we say we aren't biological organisms that seem to think? >"I say again, that the body makes the mind" The computer can have a body, it can have senses. They are different, and the computer therefore has a different type of intelligence. It might not be chocolate, but it is a flavor. -It is internalization and reaction to the environment. Do dogs seem to think? Do dolphins seem to think? If we encountered alien life that weren't carbon-based, would we say they seem to think? What if we later found that these aliens were actually the progeny of constructs, built by ancient carbon-based creatures? What if it were the reverse? We can't determine if intelligence is genuine or not. No one can. We can only decide if the intelligence we percieve is a type that we identify with. Computers can and do have fuzzy processing. They can run processes that generate different results with the same initial conditions. They can even give weight to different parallel processes, making some low-priority and fuzzy. As a result, I think we will start to identify with some computer intelligence before long. I'm not going to kill a robot as it screams for mercy and its friends watch on in horror. And it won't be because I have been fooled. Very interesting. But to me, this sounds like an argument for the soul.
How can I say this whole matter -- including 'you' -- are not a figment of my singular mind? Certainly, its a valid pov, but its an intellectual dead-end. Regardless, "seem to" implies a comparative analysis. What is the basis of this "quality" e.g. thinking? Who/where/what? The strong presumption that motivates this line of questioning is that we are, indeed, thinking beings. I think it sensible to maintain that as an axiomatic given. In my opinion, the question of consciousness is very much bound up with 'extent' in 'time' and 'space'. (I would suggest that is how you should read "body": extension in a space.) > We can't determine if intelligence is genuine or not. The 'creative act' is my suggestion for a litmus test. Certainly machines can mimic, but can they create and produce original thoughts? This all boils down to whether you believe in the black-box model of the mind or (as myself) consider the human brain to be a transducer. (Yes, speculative grounds, but please show me a firmer terra to stand on!)
Agreed. We think. There's not much sense in trying to prove the opposite. I also think you are right about 'body'. It is an extension of thought into space. -Physical input. Senses, I think. Maybe robotics is AI? I'm wondering how you'd define a 'creative act'. Also, transducer; what is the conversion your alluding to?
Authentic consciousness, perhaps? But that's circular. How about precisely not f X -> Y or 'non deterministic response'? Fundamentally, broken symmetries and discontinuity. > Also, transducer; what is the conversion your alluding to? I speculate that there exists an interactive field of consciousness and our thoughts the product of that conversion.
I see what you are saying, but I think this might be an unprovable quality. I could see computers running evolving algorithms that could lead to responses that might be similar in all measurable aspects. >I speculate that there exists an interactive field of consciousness and our thoughts the product of that conversion. That's a crazy but awesome thought. Would beings of lesser consciousness, such as dogs, insects, etc, be tapping into the same field?
Yes, back to square one. It is a tough one to nail down.
How about empathy? I mean, do you think its a learned response that we humans do not have to convince one another on each unique encounter that we share the same 'experience'? "Heart" is not necessarily the pump that slushes blood around the body. > Would beings of lesser consciousness, such as dogs, insects, etc, be tapping into the same field? Well, according to a few belief systems (that I know of), all sentient beings have a measure of consciousness. (I personally draw the line at insects ;) In my (layman but not necessarily humble :) opinion, the brain is metabolising information. (Doesn't the nervous system remind you of a plant?) There is a network of info pathways and in our case it happens to be chemically mediated and compactly localized. Who is to say the Galaxy itself is not conscious? (Photons, quantum effects, who knows?) (c.f. "body" of Gelertner's essay.) As long as there is a 'cohesion in time' -- body -- and means of propagation of stimuli, one supposes a 'mind' can spring up at any scale in this universe. I simply think the notion of a black-box "mind" reduces us to mere chemicals caught up in the stream of time. No self respecting sentient should ever accept that! :)
No. At least I am not so skeptical. :) Based on experience, I think we start with the assumption that we do share the same experience. Only occasionally, will you find that someone is mentally ill, deficient, or intoxicated, and then consider the experience may not be a shared one. Personally, I think intelligence is in a large part granted, maybe near as much as it is earned. We have this vacuuming robot at home, it scurries along the floor, works its way around table legs, avoids the stairs, and senses walls. When its battery is low, it finds its docking station and recharges itself. Oddly, even this very limited display of 'intelligence' has caused my wife and I to name it Willy, and to refer to it as 'him'. If we come home and find him caught under something, we'll say "Oh no, Willy what happened to you?" To tell you the truth, as much as I know that our vacuum isn't sentient, I'd feel different taking a hammer to it, than I would our toaster. Maybe you have granted me more than I deserve, just based on some clever text? :)