Philosophy Now Forum

Mostly Perth, then Bunbury, Sydney, Brisbane and Wollongong.

David Handeye wrote:Mostly Perth, then Bunbury, Sydney, Brisbane and Wollongong.

Sydney... not so good these days, but the other places are great. David, are you a Pom?

Why Sydney isn't so good these days?

David Handeye wrote:Why Sydney isn't so good these days?

Like most major cities, too big, too noisy, too congested, too stressful.

No, I'm not a Pom.

Ginkgo wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Why Sydney isn't so good these days?

Like most major cities, too big, too noisy, too congested, too stressful.

I see. What time is now over there?
Here in Italy is 1:30 pm, this means it's time to come back to work for me

David Handeye wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Why Sydney isn't so good these days?

Like most major cities, too big, too noisy, too congested, too stressful.

I see. What time is now over there?
Here in Italy is 1:30 pm, this means it's time to come back to work for me

9.37 p.m.> talk to you later.

The jury will disregard the last statement!

Who is dead?

Ginkgo wrote:

humblesoul wrote:Point is, consciousness is just another word for awareness . . .

Interesting point. Awareness is one aspect of consciousness, but it doesn't exhaust the extent of consciousness. Phenomenological awareness being the case in point.

humblesoul wrote:We can extend this to other life forms as well. Although plants and animals may not be "self" conscious. Who is to say that they are not capable of some awareness? . . .

True, but in this respect there are degrees of awareness. We could say that a plant is aware, but it is not phenomenologically aware. In other words, a plant doesn't know what it is like to be a plant.

humblesoul wrote:. . . Sometimes we can all act like robots, especially while at work, unconsciously hammering out our repetitive, monotonous duties. . . .

I think this raises the problem of being conscious without having experience.

People suffering from episodes of NSRED or other stripes of parasomnia seem to exemplify a primitive awareness in that they can still navigate around in their environment and perform tasks. But missing is the subject or the body's usual identity, the latter's memory and ability to remember incidents, and an understanding and cognition of what it is doing (such as munching on a metal scouring pad).

There's a temptation to suggest that these clinical conditions border on being examples of philosophical zombie-hood. But in this human mimicking of an autonomous vehicle, it has not been demonstrated that individuals in a somnambulist state actually lack qualitative showings to their perceptions and bodily sensations (simply because the "self program" is not running); and their outward behavior is certainly not indistinguishable from their normal conscious state. A p-zombie version of Tony Abbott would even report having experiences when it did not -- again, publicly indistinguishable from regular Tony Abbott.

Nevertheless, a person with NSRED, etc, may at least provide a glimpse of what it would be like to be an early-stage conscious machine. Though an AI-regulated robot would hopefully be far less arbitrary and more intellective about what it was doing.

Just forget everything after good morning!

David Handeye wrote:I have just watched Transcendence, the movie. I don't know if you have, there's a point in which Morgan Freeman asks the machine -can you prove to have a consciousness?
And the machine replies -and you? Could you prove to have a consciousness?
Morgan Freeman could not reply the machine. Why?

Sorry haven't been OT, but I'll attempt to do so.

If a machine can pass a Turing test which is what we basically are talking about here, then there's 2 options a bunch of preprogrammed answers, then there's the other option, is true improvisation.
Currently programmers can only make a machine pass as a 13y, exploiting a child's limited knowledge.

MF can't answer because humans can't prove that they're conscious, you can't just by words make a compelling argument what is going on inside of your head.

HexHammer wrote:Sorry haven't been OT, but I'll attempt to do so.

If a machine can pass a Turing test which is what we basically are talking about here, then there's 2 options a bunch of preprogrammed answers, then there's the other option, is true improvisation.
Currently programmers can only make a machine pass as a 13y, exploiting a child's limited knowledge.

MF can't answer because humans can't prove that they're conscious, you can't just by words make a compelling argument what is going on inside of your head.

Hi Hex, The GreatHex He Is,
yes, the Turing test, but I find it logically questionable, because the test itself for determining whether a machine can think, is whether, in dialogue with a PC, the human interlocutor can not understand if he is chatting with a computer or with another human being; in such case, the machine itself should be considered intelligent, since - in this situation - would be indistinguishable from a human being. But if in a chat or a forum, I pretend to be a woman, and all fall for it ... then I should be considered a woman. Obviously, mine is only an example like many others. Now, however, there's "Eugene Goostman", a computer - or rather a Cleverbot, ie a program that can support conversations - developed by Vladimir Veselov and Eugene Demchenko, who, it seems, managed to pass the test of Turing , convincing the 33% of the judges that he was a 13 year old boy.
But it is very controversial.

David Handeye wrote:Hi Hex, The GreatHex He Is,
yes, the Turing test, but I find it logically questionable, because the test itself for determining whether a machine can think, is whether, in dialogue with a PC, the human interlocutor can not understand if he is chatting with a computer or with another human being; in such case, the machine itself should be considered intelligent, since - in this situation - would be indistinguishable from a human being. But if in a chat or a forum, I pretend to be a woman, and all fall for it ... then I should be considered a woman. Obviously, mine is only an example like many others. Now, however, there's "Eugene Goostman", a computer - or rather a Cleverbot, ie a program that can support conversations - developed by Vladimir Veselov and Eugene Demchenko, who, it seems, managed to pass the test of Turing , convincing the 33% of the judges that he was a 13 year old boy.
But it is very controversial.

First off, I thank you for your compliment, and same to you, you are a rare bird that actually comprehend what I'm saying, contrary the cozy chatters that understands nothing.

I consider a Turing Test and a guy pretending to be a woman in an online environment the same in many ways, and I've met A LOT of guys pretending to be a girl.

We need to question if the guy is naïve and gullible or very intelligent?
If he's naïve and gullible then it's not the superiority of the machine/skills of the girl pretender, if the guy is very intelligent, then it is the superiority of the machine/girl pretender.

I haven't read much up on this Turing stuff, but I understand that the panel of judges has to be convinced, but at the same time that is the weakness of the test itself, when naïve and gullible judges can pollute the findings of the intelligent judges.

HexHammer wrote:First off, I thank you for your compliment, and same to you, you are a rare bird that actually comprehend what I'm saying, contrary the cozy chatters that understands nothing.

I consider a Turing Test and a guy pretending to be a woman in an online environment the same in many ways, and I've met A LOT of guys pretending to be a girl.

We need to question if the guy is naïve and gullible or very intelligent?
If he's naïve and gullible then it's not the superiority of the machine/skills of the girl pretender, if the guy is very intelligent, then it is the superiority of the machine/girl pretender.

I haven't read much up on this Turing stuff, but I understand that the panel of judges has to be convinced, but at the same time that is the weakness of the test itself, when naïve and gullible judges can pollute the findings of the intelligent judges.

Yes. But you see, maybe I was too much engaged with the plot of the movie, so that I wasn't able to express well. I mean, as I have written in my previous posts, this was not a typical machine/computer, this was a "computer", so hardware, but uploaded with a consciousness of a "real" person. However, as MF says in the movie, always a machine. Now, the heart of the matter, is not how to understand if we're talking to a machine or to a human being (Turing test), but it is how to demonstrate, in any way, to a thinking machine of having a consciousness of our own. I don't know if I was able to explain, but it's a bit different. Anyway, it's a beautiful film, the fact is that I like science fiction, but this one is involved with philosophical issues too, that I know everyone on this wonderful forum like, as I do.