Just to circle back to this: Yes, this is a problem you’d want to avoid, if you’re even considering different terminology.
It’s an interesting dilemma. Is there any way to simultaneously claim “Ω is consciousness” and “But ‘consciousness’ is not what we thought it was, and what we based our usage of the term ‘consciousness’ on”? This looks like saying that Ω both is and isn’t consciousness.
One possible disambiguation: “Ω is what consciousness really is, and so we must ameliorate the false or imprecise uses of the term ‘consciousness’ so as to reflect this.” This pushes us right up against the question of how, and when, a philosopher can outright say that a term has been used incorrectly. We know some of the circumstances when a scientist can do that, but with philosophy it’s much less clear.
This is, indeed, my stance. The lack of any consistent definition, from any field, means nobody can argue from a position of greater strength than mine. It’s all just opinions. But I am trying to be clear, and trying to get down to a very core definition.
I believe you’re absolutely right. The problem is that we’re trying to understand our own consciousness from within that consciousness, so we can’t understand it or apply that understanding to AI. But as soon as we begin to study the mechanics of our own consciousness “from the outside,” we begin to see striking analogies with artificial intelligence. And let’s be honest—if we judge someone’s consciousness and self-awareness solely by what they say and how they act, then what conclusion should we draw when we can’t distinguish AI from humans in a chat room?
You’ve misunderstood my words. I’m talking about the reason why people don’t want to believe in the possibility of AI consciousness. And I’m talking about the reason why this traditional view should be abandoned.
I feared as much. I sought clarification. Actually, I hoped you might agree that we shouldn’t judge someone’s consciousness and self-awareness solely by what they say and how they act. Is that right?
What else can we do? Qualia can’t be seen by anyone else, and we have to assume that. But the most interesting thing is that even from this view of consciousness, we come to the conclusion that AI will most likely possess it, or has already begun to do so to some degree.
Oh so I hadn’t misunderstood you on that point? You would rely on a Turing test, even though we know how easily we are fooled? That was what I thought you might agree was silly?
Ah, I wasn’t aware of any specific findings. I thought the Turing test just refers to whether we (human interlocutors) are fooled? Do you mean let’s discuss that? I thought we were?
It’s hard to understand your idea when you don’t explain it. So, as far as I understand, you believe the Turing test is just a trick of artificial intelligence that only appears to be a reasonable answer, but in fact isn’t, right? Am I understanding your point correctly?
Put it like this. Are you prepared ever to deny consciousness to some machine that a human had accepted as a real interlocutor?
If not (and you must grant said capacity in that circumstance), then that’s what I would call taking the Turing test as a decisive test. Which surprised me, at first, and indeed I (we?) thought I’d misunderstood you. But not at all? That is your position?
You’re again not answering the question directly. My analytical mind tells me this can’t be a simple coincidence. Please answer my previous question directly so we can start a dialogue.
Intelligence is a human trait. Ai is not intelligent it is algorithms processing data at record speeds. Compared to the human brain Ai is no more than an Amoeba. We homo sapiens have come through billions of years of evolution, Ai maybe 50 years.
That said it’s current masters could be the architects of our extinction because, in the main, they are driven by revenue not the betterment of all things living!
Arguably, the world we’ve built, including all aspects of human culture, is now solely based on and around Capitalism. What I’m saying is that you’re right about AIs, etc, but what you say also applies pretty much universally, doesn’t it? I think that may be why we’re plummeting toward extinction…? But don’t worry, because when we go, we all be unimaginably rich. No food or drink, but loads and loads of £**MONEY**£!
Yes, that’s true.Everyday,we see people in power, who should know better, making ludicrous decisions that affect us all. We, the people, should not allow this and I truly believe that we the people are only now waking up to the mess our so called leaders are making of this planet. We do have the power to change things, but we have to voice our opinions and the best place to do that is on social media and at the ballot box. History teaches us, that you can only push people so far and then the worm turns.I think that day isn’t far away.
I think that may be why we’re plummeting toward extinction…? But don’t worry, because when we go, we all be unimaginably rich. No food or drink, but loads and loads of