computer consciousness

[ayelet1000]

hi,
I'm looking to read an article for one of my courses, to give in a short review of what it consist.
the idea i had was after seeing the TV show "Black Mirror", the episode "Be right back". where in that episode a wife losses her husband and to deal with the lost she calls a company which manages to duplicate via electronic media that her husband used, communication with the wife.
it starts with emails and phone calls, and then ends up with a robot who imitates her husbands behaviour, the question that arises is what amount of consciousness does that robot posses and till what extent.

i am looking for an article talking about that subject, where does the line go to different computers from humans, duplicate computers to act the same way a human would to that extent, and at what point will the computers not? be able to reach to the human way.

I've tied finding something on that subject, but didn't manage finding an academic article that is ob that, more the type of chines room problem..

do you know of something that can be relevant,
or better places/keywords i should use to find what I'm searching?

thanx

Ayelet

[hammock]

...then ends up with a robot who imitates her husbands behaviour, the question that arises is what amount of consciousness does that robot posses and till what extent. ... where does the line go to different computers from humans, duplicate computers to act the same way a human would to that extent, and at what point will the computers not? be able to reach to the human way. I've tied finding something on that subject, but didn't manage finding an academic article that is ob that...

There's plenty available about simulating the broad concept of human intelligence in AI; but apparently not much pertaining to issues revolving around reconstructing a particular individual's personality / memory in a computer-android body [as opposed to the potential ludicrousness of directly uploading a brain's information structure]. So it looks as if you'll just have to research the general literature on personal identity, consciousness, and machine intelligence [at sites like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], and from there - on your own, formulate a specific subset about "philosophy of robot duplicates of people" [somatic, psychological, behavioural].

In terms of a quasi-professional outputting, there might be Joe Stout's rather anemic / useless sequence here, here, etc.

... Many people will concede that the technology may develop, and may produce a duplicate android or whatever that thinks it's you -- but is it really you? What's really being debated here is the issue of personal identity, which has been a philosophical bone of contention for centuries. ... The alternative to artificial reality is to build a mechanical body which carries the brain simulator around, just as our bodies carry around our brains now. The body would need to duplicate the senses and motor functions of a real human body if we want to minimize the patient's adjustment. Artificial bodies would no doubt be crude at first, with numbed senses and clumsy muscles, but if demand is high, technology is sure to improve. Rather than clunky metal robots such as the famous "C-3P0" of Star Wars fame, artificial bodies will probably be made of smart polymers, ceramics, and other advanced materials....

More of the pop-market stuff you've already encountered, further downgraded into a Japanese media franchise: Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell.

... the various protagonists are left with disturbing questions: "What exactly is the definition of 'human' in a society where a mind can be copied and the body replaced with a synthetic form?", "What exactly is the 'ghost' —the human soul— in the cybernetic body, or 'shell'?", "Where is the boundary between human and machine when the differences between the two become more philosophical than physical?", etc.
...
In Ghost in the Shell, the word "ghost" is colloquial slang for an individual's consciousness. In the manga's futuristic society, science has redefined the ghost as the thing that differentiates a human being from a biological robot. Regardless of how much biological material is replaced with electronic or mechanical substitutes, as long as individuals retain their ghost, they retain their humanity and individuality.

The concept of the ghost was borrowed by Masamune Shirow from an essay on structuralism, The Ghost in the Machine, by Arthur Koestler. The title itself was originally used by an English philosopher, Gilbert Ryle, to mock the paradox of conventional Cartesian dualism and dualism in general. Koestler, like Ryle, denies Cartesian dualism and locates the origin of human mind in the physical condition of the brain. He argues that the human brain has grown and built upon earlier, more primitive brain structures, the "ghost in the machine", which at times overpower higher logical functions, and are responsible for hate, anger and other such destructive impulses. Shirow denies dualism similarly in his work, but defines the "ghost" more broadly, not only as a physical trait, but as a phase or phenomenon that appears in a system at a certain level of complexity.
...
In Ghost in the Shell, Kusanagi completely reproduces the stimulus of all of her organs in order to maintain her "ghost". If a technical error arises during the transfer of a "ghost" from one body to another, the transfer normally results in failure, since the "ghost" tends to deteriorate due to either the difference of system at the material level or the deficiency of the transferring protocol. The Puppet Master manages not to deteriorate its "ghost" when merging with Kusanagi because his system is the body of information itself, thereby avoiding a deterioration due to the deficiency at material level.

[Ginkgo]

hi,


i am looking for an article talking about that subject, where does the line go to different computers from humans, duplicate computers to act the same way a human would to that extent, and at what point will the computers not? be able to reach to the human way.

Two schools of thought in relation to this particular question. There is the argument that no matter how sophisticated and complex you make your computer it will never be able to have EXPERIENCES. In other words, your computer may well be able to act emotionally in terms of PRETENDING to be happy, offended or sad. But in the end it will only ever by just an ACT, it can never actually be emotional.

The other argument centers on the possibility that in the future computers will actually be able to have experience if we make them complex enough. In other words, through complexity humans emotions will emerge from silicon chips in the same way as emotions have emerged from an increasing complexity found in neurons.

Jackson's "Knowledge" Argument" and David Chalmers' " Philosophical Zombie Argument" deals with the above.

[Mark Question]

" your computermay well be able to act emotionallyin termsof PRETENDING to be happy,offendedor sad. But in the endit will only ever by justan ACT, it can neveractually be emotional." no. You need Concious mind to do Pretending. unconcious Can not Pretend Anyhing.

Secondly, IF Machine Feels like Human To us then It is like Human. and IF Human feels like Human to us Then It is like Human. same rules.same turing Test.

[Ginkgo]

" your computermay well be able to act emotionallyin termsof PRETENDING to be happy,offendedor sad. But in the endit will only ever by justan ACT, it can neveractually be emotional." no. You need Concious mind to do Pretending. unconcious Can not Pretend Anyhing.

Secondly, IF Machine Feels like Human To us then It is like Human. and IF Human feels like Human to us Then It is like Human. same rules.same turing Test.

When I use the words "pretend" in this context it is not usually taken in the literal sense. It just means that we can program a machine to give an emotional response when asked certain questions. So the outward expression of sadness on the part of the machine is just a programed response, it isn't really sad.

Being like a human may not be the same was being a human. Chalmers' philosophical zombie is said to be like a human in every way except it lacks experience.

[cladking]

I suspect there's a very fundamental problem with AI.

There's no such thing as "intelligence".

What we're really trying to do is make a computer which can use language such that people can't detect that it's not human.

For this reason I believe AI may be a dead end and what we really need to do is develop machine intelligence and let it figure out how to use confused language.

[Ginkgo]

I suspect there's a very fundamental problem with AI.

There's no such thing as "intelligence".

What we're really trying to do is make a computer which can use language such that people can't detect that it's not human.

For this reason I believe AI may be a dead end and what we really need to do is develop machine intelligence and let it figure out how to use confused language.

If there is no such things as intelligence then how can we develop a machine that can display intelligence.

You have a contradiction.

[Mark Question]

" your computermay well be able to act emotionallyin termsof PRETENDING to be happy,offendedor sad. But in the endit will only ever by justan ACT, it can neveractually be emotional." no. You need Concious mind to do Pretending. unconcious Can not Pretend Anyhing.

Secondly, IF Machine Feels like Human To us then It is like Human. and IF Human feels like Human to us Then It is like Human. same rules.same turing Test.

When I use the words "pretend" in this context it is not usually taken in the literal sense. It just means that we can program a machine to give an emotional response when asked certain questions. So the outward expression of sadness on the part of the machine is just a programed response, it isn't really sad.

Being like a human may not be the same was being a human. Chalmers' philosophical zombie is said to be like a human in every way except it lacks experience.

What is the fundamental difference Between Machine and Human and Their emotional Responces?
Human e xpression of SADness is also Biologically and Socially Programmed.
Human Cant act like Human without Memory of Experiences, without Brains.

[Ginkgo]

What is the fundamental difference Between Machine and Human and Their emotional Responces?
Human e xpression of SADness is also Biologically and Socially Programmed.
Human Cant act like Human without Memory of Experiences, without Brains.

At this stage of AI development machines don't have an emotional response.

At this stage you cannot biologically programme a machine.

Yes, it is possible that brains are more complex than a simple switching system, regardless of how extensive the system is.

[Mark Question]

What is the fundamental difference Between Machine and Human and Their emotional Responces?
Human e xpression of SADness is also Biologically and Socially Programmed.
Human Cant act like Human without Memory of Experiences, without Brains.

At this stage of AI development machines don't have an emotional response.

At this stage you cannot biologically programme a machine.

Yes, it is possible that brains are more complex than a simple switching system, regardless of how extensive the system is.

there is Machines with emotional Responses.
robots Can show SAD faces, programs Can Say they Are happy...

WHy i have to program Biological Processes? did YOUR Parents program You?
or did They Made You, Was it Accident? same Can happend with Machines and programs.

Brains Can be Both. simple and Complex. Memory of Experiences Makes us Learning Persons. Brainless CREatures Can Learn Too. there is Also Swarm Intelligence and Other Forms of intelligence.

[Ginkgo]

there is Machines with emotional Responses.
robots Can show SAD faces, programs Can Say they Are happy...

WHy i have to program Biological Processes? did YOUR Parents program You?
or did They Made You, Was it Accident? same Can happend with Machines and programs.

Brains Can be Both. simple and Complex. Memory of Experiences Makes us Learning Persons. Brainless CREatures Can Learn Too. there is Also Swarm Intelligence and Other Forms of intelligence.

Yes, it is true machines can be programmed to say they are happy, but it is only ever a programmed response. They are not ACTUALLY or REALLY happy. Do your see the difference?


Yes, experiences can make us learning persons and experience is an important aspect of consciousness.


I don't really understand you second question in relation to "parents programing"

[HexHammer]

Yes, it is true machines can be programmed to say they are happy, but it is only ever a programmed response. They are not ACTUALLY or REALLY happy. Do your see the difference?


Yes, experiences can make us learning persons and experience is an important aspect of consciousness.


I don't really understand you second question in relation to "parents programing"

When you interact with more humans, you'll get to understand that there's little difference, as people will often lie about their state of mind, why it's irrelevant if the machine actually understand what's it's saying.

What matters is if it responds in a correct context, that's all there is to it.

[Ginkgo]

Yes, it is true machines can be programmed to say they are happy, but it is only ever a programmed response. They are not ACTUALLY or REALLY happy. Do your see the difference?


Yes, experiences can make us learning persons and experience is an important aspect of consciousness.


I don't really understand you second question in relation to "parents programing"

When you interact with more humans, you'll get to understand that there's little difference, as people will often lie about their state of mind, why it's irrelevant if the machine actually understand what's it's saying.

What matters is if it responds in a correct context, that's all there is to it.

Thanks, I'll try to get out more. I am starting to suspect the people I hang out with are actually philosophical zombies set loose by David Chalmers.

[HexHammer]

Androids will probaly come in about 10 years, part man, part machine.

We already have superlight materials, that is sturdy enough to replace bone, but question is if we create fully bio models to maintain itself, to selfheal and selfreproduce cells when getting worn down.

Disk space ain't sufficient yet, we need some peta bytes in order to simulate the human brain, unless we find ways to compress necessary computer knowledge.

As of now we store whole pages of information, but in the future there should only be key features of info stored, then a program would automatically generate the missing unessential pieces.

[Mark Question]

It is not IMPOrtant how we Make autonomous learning beings. Sex is Fun but Programming Can be too.
THOse beings grow. They learn, Gain experience and memorize things.

OUR friends could be philosophical zombies if They Are unconsious. Are They?
(philosophical ZOmbie souds like philosophical joke.)

cyborgs are already here! beware the guy with eye-glasses or wooden leg.

do They have feelings? pain, scaryness, anger,..if They Seem to have, if They act like us? Scream, ESCape, attack,..did YOUR massproducted meat have feelings?