Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Do you think they ever will?

Yes. The new generation of illuminati are well aware of the fact that they've got something badly wrong and that's a good start. Unfortunately, however, the dinosaurs like Hawking still hold all the top academic spots.

If man unravels and understands all that provides reality, i assure you they will find God\'God'.

attofishpi wrote:, i assure you they will find God\'God'.

I reckon finding a fiver down the back of the armchair would be a bigger thrill.

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:, i assure you they will find God\'God'.

I reckon finding a fiver down the back of the armchair would be a bigger thrill.

Good point.

attofishpi wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:, i assure you they will find God\'God'.

I reckon finding a fiver down the back of the armchair would be a bigger thrill.

Good point.

Obvious Leo wrote:Drive a car better than a human no problem. Catch a frisbee as well as a human I'll believe it when I see it.

Depends on the journey.

I'd put a human against any computer in a Formula One contest.

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Do you think they ever will?

Yes. The new generation of illuminati are well aware of the fact that they've got something badly wrong and that's a good start. Unfortunately, however, the dinosaurs like Hawking still hold all the top academic spots.

His generation had to muscle out Hoyle's, and the next will push his wheelchair in the lake.
This is what happens.

At least he has a sense of humour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7d3EC-cwN4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPOa72dsrGw

Hobbes' Choice wrote: His generation had to muscle out Hoyle's, and the next will push his wheelchair in the lake.
This is what happens.

Not just in physics either. Academics are very precious about their home turf in most disciplines and the peer review system ensures that mostly only papers which accord with the approved orthodoxies ever get accepted by the reputable journals.

Most of the philosophers here do not see conscious AI as a reality BUT:

Computer passes 'Turing Test' for the first time after convincing users it is human

"A ''super computer'' has duped humans into thinking it is a 13-year-old boy to become the first machine to pass the ''iconic'' Turing Test, experts have said.
Five machines were tested at the Royal Society in central London to see if they could fool people into thinking they were humans during text-based conversations.
The test was devised in 1950 by computer science pioneer and Second World War codebreaker Alan Turing, who said that if a machine was indistinguishable from a human, then it was ''thinking''..........

See whole article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... human.html

Now let me ask you this - How can you prove to me, using the computer you are now on, that you are in fact a Human,
and not some form of advanced AI that is acting like a Human - PROVE TO ME YOU ARE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AND
NOT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

UniversalAlien wrote:Most of the philosophers here do not see conscious AI as a reality BUT:

Computer passes 'Turing Test' for the first time after convincing users it is human

"A ''super computer'' has duped humans into thinking it is a 13-year-old boy to become the first machine to pass the ''iconic'' Turing Test, experts have said.
Five machines were tested at the Royal Society in central London to see if they could fool people into thinking they were humans during text-based conversations.
The test was devised in 1950 by computer science pioneer and Second World War codebreaker Alan Turing, who said that if a machine was indistinguishable from a human, then it was ''thinking''..........

See whole article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... human.html

Now let me ask you this - How can you prove to me, using the computer you are now on, that you are in fact a Human,
and not some form of advanced AI that is acting like a Human - PROVE TO ME YOU ARE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AND
NOT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

I think this is a crock of shite.
DO you have to quote the Torygraph?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

UniversalAlien wrote:Most of the philosophers here do not see conscious AI as a reality BUT:

Computer passes 'Turing Test' for the first time after convincing users it is human

"A ''super computer'' has duped humans into thinking it is a 13-year-old boy to become the first machine to pass the ''iconic'' Turing Test, experts have said.
Five machines were tested at the Royal Society in central London to see if they could fool people into thinking they were humans during text-based conversations.
The test was devised in 1950 by computer science pioneer and Second World War codebreaker Alan Turing, who said that if a machine was indistinguishable from a human, then it was ''thinking''..........

See whole article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... human.html

Now let me ask you this - How can you prove to me, using the computer you are now on, that you are in fact a Human,
and not some form of advanced AI that is acting like a Human - PROVE TO ME YOU ARE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AND
NOT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

I think this is a crock of shite.
DO you have to quote the Torygraph?

Yes, you almost have me convinced, after all it would seem only a Humans could make such an asinine statement,
But:

Any A.I. smart enough to pass a Turing test is smart enough to know to fail it.
--IAN MCDONALD, River of Gods

So I can't be sure - Possibly they have advanced AI that can duplicate Human stupidity - You still have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact Human.

Alan Turing was a genius of impressive calibre, but he was a mathematician and not a cognitive neuroscientist. He was as qualified to make comment about the nature of consciousness as your dentist is qualified to correct your golf swing.

Obvious Leo wrote:Alan Turing was a genius of impressive calibre, but he was a mathematician and not a cognitive neuroscientist. He was as qualified to make comment about the nature of consciousness as your dentist is qualified to correct your golf swing.

But you know what I'm getting at - If now AI can fool qualified Humans that it is a conscious 13 year old in ten years you may
see an AI program debating on a forum such as this one - Are you sure it could not fool you into believing that it was conscious?

That said I've yet to see in debates of this type a definition of consciousness that most will accept. I say an entity that has
a self it is aware of and can willfully interact with an environment it is aware of. I wold be curious Leo as to how you would define consciousness - And what would be your criterion to accept a machine as being conscious?

UniversalAlien wrote:I wold be curious Leo as to how you would define consciousness

It's a word I rarely use other than in the generic sense which most people apply to it. I maintain a distinction between cognition, which is simply information processing, and awareness, which is an observation of such a process. Since both of these are biologically embodied emergent phenomena in human beings I simply see no valid way of applying these concepts to a machine. A termite colony behaves intelligently but is the colony more "conscious" than any of the individual termites. You'll have to tell me because in biology the term simply cannot be applied in this way.

UniversalAlien wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Alan Turing was a genius of impressive calibre, but he was a mathematician and not a cognitive neuroscientist. He was as qualified to make comment about the nature of consciousness as your dentist is qualified to correct your golf swing.

But you know what I'm getting at - If now AI can fool qualified Humans that it is a conscious 13 year old in ten years you may
see an AI program debating on a forum such as this one - Are you sure it could not fool you into believing that it was conscious?

That said I've yet to see in debates of this type a definition of consciousness that most will accept. I say an entity that has
a self it is aware of and can willfully interact with an environment it is aware of. I wold be curious Leo as to how you would define consciousness - And what would be your criterion to accept a machine as being conscious?

Some people are easily confused. Others not so much.
I think I could unpack that guise.
I cannot bring myself to open an article from the Torygraph, and I doubt the information I need to assess the validity of the circumstances of the test are in the article, so I'll reserve judgement for now.

Obvious Leo wrote:

UniversalAlien wrote:I wold be curious Leo as to how you would define consciousness

It's a word I rarely use other than in the generic sense which most people apply to it. I maintain a distinction between cognition, which is simply information processing, and awareness, which is an observation of such a process. Since both of these are biologically embodied emergent phenomena in human beings I simply see no valid way of applying these concepts to a machine. A termite colony behaves intelligently but is the colony more "conscious" than any of the individual termites. You'll have to tell me because in biology the term simply cannot be applied in this way.

The termite colony is a good analogy here.