Philosophy Now Forum

Recently I have been reading that quantum computers could soon be a reality, and very soon! An advancement in technology that basically is on par with the human brain.. But without the consciousness? My question is do you think that if an AI program fitted with quantum computing, could find awareness? Consciousness at some basic level? Your views would be much appreciated! Thanks people

I myself work in the car manufacturing industry, as an electrician, we install new production lines conveyor, robots etc. And this is just my opinion view on things or should I say a gut feeling! When I look at the final product that we have provided. Looking at the efficiency and new technologies of the robots and the capability of them.. It does scare me at some level! I imagine what the manufacturering process will be like when quantum computing is introduced?

First we need to define what is conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness.
Then we list down all the features and criteria including rating and degrees that qualify for the above expectations.

Given the trend of the current exponential expansion in robotics, knowledge and technology, I am confident in future human will be able to invent robots which are capable of performing most of the items above to some degrees in the list except certain impossible ones.

The permanent difference is, the robot's feature is robotic conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness and not human [biological evolved] conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness.
In addition, the robots' conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness is conditioned and limited to human control and its power source. Whether the robot can gain independence by itself is questionable - maybe that is possible.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:28 am First we need to define what is conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness.
Then we list down all the features and criteria including rating and degrees that qualify for the above expectations.

Given the trend of the current exponential expansion in robotics, knowledge and technology, I am confident in future human will be able to invent robots which are capable of performing most of the items above to some degrees in the list except certain impossible ones.

The permanent difference is, the robot's feature is robotic conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness and not human [biological evolved] conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness.
In addition, the robots' conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness is conditioned and limited to human control and its power source. Whether the robot can gain independence by itself is questionable - maybe that is possible.

What is your personal opinion? Do you think that quantum computing will give rise to a robotic consciousness of some kind?

Davyboi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:28 am First we need to define what is conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness.
Then we list down all the features and criteria including rating and degrees that qualify for the above expectations.

Given the trend of the current exponential expansion in robotics, knowledge and technology, I am confident in future human will be able to invent robots which are capable of performing most of the items above to some degrees in the list except certain impossible ones.

The permanent difference is, the robot's feature is robotic conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness and not human [biological evolved] conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness.
In addition, the robots' conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness is conditioned and limited to human control and its power source. Whether the robot can gain independence by itself is questionable - maybe that is possible.

What is your personal opinion? Do you think that quantum computing will give rise to a robotic consciousness of some kind?

I stated above;

• "Given the trend of the current exponential expansion in robotics, knowledge and technology, I am confident in future human will be able to invent robots which are capable of performing most of the items above to some degrees in the list except certain impossible ones."

It is not only via quantum computing but the whole range of advance knowledge and technology that will enable humans to invent robots that are capable of 'robotic consciousness' [equivalent to 90% of real human consciousness].

I believe in the future [100, 200, >500 years] a normal person will not be able to differentiate the difference between a robot and a biological human being in their interactions [based on behavior] from a short distance, until they are told the truth or touch the robot.

Quantum computers are a reality. They have been for about 7-8 years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems

Although they are not the conventional thing we call a computer. The particular computer DWave manufactures does one thing and one thing only.
It solves Hamiltonian equations REALLY fast! And so if the problem you are trying to solve can be expressed as a Hamiltonian equation (no, the computer won't write the equation for you) - then you are in luck. https://support.dwavesys.com/hc/en-us/a ... miltonian-

They excel at solving problems in the BQP complexity class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQP

All the mathematics aside they are REALLY good at one kind of problem: Complex optimisation.Once you give them the equation.

I think the media hype tends to confuse things in any case. Computers aren't these magical tings. They are good at decision-problems and many people are foreign to the notion of "decidability". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

Very many important problems in Mathematics AND in general are undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

So we will always need humans

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:28 am First we need to define what is conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness.
Then we list down all the features and criteria including rating and degrees that qualify for the above expectations.

That's not how science works. That's never how science worked.

The way we do stuff goes about as follows: First we build it so that it DOES what we want it to do. Then we see if it DOES things better or worse than <another thing>.
The only way we know how to test whether something is 'conscious' or not is the Turing test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ).

It either performs worse than a human, indistinguishable from a human; or better than a human FOR A PARTICULAR TASK.

The problem, of course - is that if we have indeed designed consciousness and intelligence superior to ours it can always CHOOSE to fail the test. ON PURPOSE. And that should scare the crap out of you!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:28 am First we need to define what is conscious awareness, e.g. self-consciousness.
Then we list down all the features and criteria including rating and degrees that qualify for the above expectations.

That's not how science works. That's never how science worked.

The way we do stuff goes about as follows: First we build it so that it DOES what we want it to do. Then we see if it DOES things better or worse than <another thing>.
The only way we know how to test whether something is 'conscious' or not is the Turing test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ).

It either performs worse than a human, indistinguishable from a human; or better than a human FOR A PARTICULAR TASK.

The problem, of course - is that if we have indeed designed consciousness and intelligence superior to ours it can always CHOOSE to fail the test. ON PURPOSE. And that should scare the crap out of you!

What sort of thinking is that?
Lost as usual.

This is not about how Science works. Science is merely a tool to the OP.

Note the question of the OP;
My question is do you think that if an AI program fitted with quantum computing, could find awareness? Consciousness at some basic level?

Effectively we must define what do we mean by human [presumed] 'awareness' and 'consciousness'. Then we have to list down the attributes, features, etc that qualify to meet the above definitions.
The Turing test is basic, there should be more requirements for a robot to qualify to be as near to human consciousness and awareness.
A robotic wife in the future should be able to say something like 'Sorry darling, I have a headache tonight'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:25 am What sort of thinking is that?
Lost as usual.

It's the sort of thinking that works out in the real world. It's somewhat more 'found' than what you are alluding to.

Refer to this for clarity: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:25 am This is not about how Science works. Science is merely a tool to the OP.

Yes it is a tool. And the tool has limits.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:25 am Note the question of the OP;
My question is do you think that if an AI program fitted with quantum computing, could find awareness? Consciousness at some basic level?

Effectively we must define what do we mean by human [presumed] 'awareness' and 'consciousness'. Then we have to list down the attributes, features, etc that qualify to meet the above definitions.

*slow clap*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_algorithm

Suppose you have all the criterions for 'consciousness and awareness'. Where would you look for them? What is the INPUT to your algorithm and what Type I and Type II error ratio are you willing to tolerate?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:25 am The Turing test is basic, there should be more requirements for a robot to qualify to be as near to human consciousness and awareness.
A robotic wife in the future should be able to say something like 'Sorry darling, I have a headache tonight'.

Non-sequitur. Having a list of requirements implies the task has clear success/failure criteria.

Humans don't work like that IN PRACTICE. Our tasks are rather open-ended. The goals are not always clear. We say one thing but we settle for another. We tend to do a lot of "I know it when I see it".

Your probabalistic 'I have a headache' requirement is trivial to implement. Here: https://repl.it/repls/ThornyWideeyedElectricity

The real challenges in AI are things like objectives/sub-objectives. Navigating unexpected events. Initiative. Like this guy: https://youtu.be/aFuA50H9uek

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:25 am What sort of thinking is that?
Lost as usual.

It's the sort of thinking that works out in the real world. It's somewhat more 'found' than what you are alluding to.

Refer to this for clarity: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:25 am This is not about how Science works. Science is merely a tool to the OP.

Yes it is a tool. And the tool has limits.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:25 am Note the question of the OP;
My question is do you think that if an AI program fitted with quantum computing, could find awareness? Consciousness at some basic level?

Effectively we must define what do we mean by human [presumed] 'awareness' and 'consciousness'. Then we have to list down the attributes, features, etc that qualify to meet the above definitions.

*slow clap*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_algorithm

Suppose you have all the criterions for 'consciousness and awareness'. Where would you look for them? What is the INPUT to your algorithm and what Type I and Type II error ratio are you willing to tolerate?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:25 am The Turing test is basic, there should be more requirements for a robot to qualify to be as near to human consciousness and awareness.
A robotic wife in the future should be able to say something like 'Sorry darling, I have a headache tonight'.

Non-sequitur. Having a list of requirements implies the task has clear success/failure criteria.

Humans don't work like that IN PRACTICE. Our tasks are rather open-ended. The goals are not always clear. We say one thing but we settle for another. We tend to do a lot of "I know it when I see it".

Your probabalistic 'I have a headache' requirement is trivial to implement. Here: https://repl.it/repls/ThornyWideeyedElectricity

Any programmer can write a program for a robot to say 'I have a headache'.

What I meant was it has to be in a near human context.
If you traced back the activities of the robotic wife, perhaps the human husband has 'stressed' the robotic wife with too much demands, etc. etc. e.g. banged too hard during sex and the robot has to wait for the damage vagina to self-repair. [note that scenario could be >100, 200, 500 years into the future.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:18 am What I meant was it has to be in a near human context.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:18 am If you traced back the activities of the robotic wife, perhaps the human husband has 'stressed' the robotic wife with too much demands, etc. etc.

Robots don't experience 'stress'. Robots are slaves. They don't complain about 'excessive demands'.
If a robot told you 'I have a headache' it would be lying to you.

But we can make it say such things to meet your EXPECTATION. To make the robot SEEM more 'human' TO YOU.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:18 am What I meant was it has to be in a near human context.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:18 am If you traced back the activities of the robotic wife, perhaps the human husband has 'stressed' the robotic wife with too much demands, etc. etc.

Robots don't experience 'stress'. Robots are slaves. They don't complain about 'excessive demands'.

Your EXPECTATION to have the robot BEHAVE like a 'real human' is artificial.

Lost again.

Note the OP which is asking for a robot that could have human awareness and consciousness which realistically can only be as near as possible to a 'real human'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:23 am Lost again.

Indeed. You are - so lets try to get you on-track.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:23 am Note the OP which is asking for a robot that could have human awareness and consciousness which realistically can only be as near as possible to a 'real human'.

So does it have to experience headache or only PRETEND to experience headache?

But the question that is interesting to me is why do you EXPECT it to say 'Sorry darling, I have a headache tonight' when you damn well know that robots don't experience headaches.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:23 am Lost again.

Indeed. You are - so lets try to get you on-track.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:23 am Note the OP which is asking for a robot that could have human awareness and consciousness which realistically can only be as near as possible to a 'real human'.

So does it have to experience headache or only PRETEND to experience headache?

But the question that is interesting to me is why do you EXPECT it to say 'Sorry darling, I have a headache tonight' when you damn well know that robots don't experience headaches.

Lost again?
Note the OP's expectation for the robot to be as human as possible.

If in 200 years time, the general public is using such excuses and phrases like 'Sorry darling, I have a headache' the programmers and architects will use such phrases to be as close as possible to real human behaviors.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:11 am Lost again?

Ok. I'll keep clarifying until you stop being lost.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:11 am Note the OP's expectation for the robot to be as human as possible.

Are you familiar with the particularism/methodism distinction in epistemology?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemol ... ticularism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism_(philosophy)

Or procedural/declarative distinction ( http://unt.unice.fr/uoh/learn_teach_FL/ ... ategorie=3 ). Same thing!

That you (or the OP) have some EXPECTATION of what "as human as possible" means is clear. But you are confusing your procedural conception with a declarative one.

Can you define a METHOD for detecting humans? No you can't! But you can IDENTIFY human from non-human!

Any expectation you can NARRATE in WORDS can be turned into a method (program!). But that is insufficient. Because your particularist conceptions are broader than those you have expressed here.

What makes us 'human' is je ne sais quoi. You know it when you see it! It's procedural, not declarative.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:11 am If in 200 years time, the general public is using such excuses and phrases like 'Sorry darling, I have a headache' the programmers and architects will use such phrases to be as close as possible to real human behaviors.

You still missed the point. Is the goal of the programmer to FOOL the humans into thinking the robot is human?

If yes - then fine. We can make the robot PRETEND to be human.

But you are really confused about this one thing: Robots don't NEED excuses! Robots can USE excuses to manipulate YOU.

If a robot is USING excuses to manipulate YOU towards its own GOALS it is conscious AND more intelligent than YOU!

Autonomous goal-setting, strategising and decision-making are sufficient criteria for 'consciousness'!