Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible

[studiot]

37 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Satellite navigation, not satellite navigation system. Do you know the difference between the two?

My analogy is regarding deriving knowledge from practical effects.

This is in the actual text of the paper (one glance isn't going to help you or anyone here, as evidenced by this entire "discussion"):

Yes you have mentionted 'satellite navigation' several times now, though you have completely failed to mention what you mean by this.

Please demonstrate how this relates to the topic in hand, which is the (im)possibility of artificial consciousness.

Since intelligence is different from consciousness we should not be discussing that subject either, according to the rules and regulations of this forum.

[AIkonoklazt]

24 minutes ago, Genady said:

There is no conflation. I didn't use the terms "artificial consciousness" or "natural consciousness" anymore. You can call it whatever you like. My questions is,

 

In a longer form,

Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and built device to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

The "conflation" was regarding another user. This forum software bunches up replies if the replies are made in quick enough succession.

This was my reply, you might have missed it:
 

Quote

Excuse me, but do you know what you're even asking at this point? Do you realize that the making of any man-made object doesn't start with a "law of nature"? If so, then the design process itself is also that of "natural law," and thus everything is operating on "natural design," a equivalent of an Intelligent Design argument?

You need to tread carefully at this point.

 

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There's no real confusion about the "artificial" bit. You can easily demonstrate that intelligence of some sort was involved in producing "artificial consciousness" and therefor the artificial bit can be taken as established. 

Just as a termite mound or bee's nest, or crow's nest is artificial, because some level of artifice, no matter how small, was involved in making it. 

So the real point of interest is, can consciousness exist, without 4.7 billion years of non-intentional evolution? 

I would say that of course it can, it just won't be identical. Just as our consciousness is different to that of a fish. 

There's "no confusion" yet in your previous reply you stated effectively the opposite, indicating that it's a "fuzzy" and how some people use it some way and other people use it in others, what in the world was that even for? Were you speaking for yourself or not?

You said that "of course it can" and then left it at that. That's called "arguing by assertion." Back up what you said. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

 

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The "conflation" was regarding another user. This forum software bunches up replies if the replies are made in quick enough succession.

This was my reply, you might have missed it:
 

 

It surely appears like you're looking for an excuse not to answer my question. It is a Yes/No question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and built device to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Genady said:

It surely appears like you're looking for an excuse not to answer my question. It is a Yes/No question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and built device to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

You're ignoring that the process of design isn't one of "natural law" or "natural design." You're the one who is avoiding the issue. Next.

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes you have mentionted 'satellite navigation' several times now, though you have completely failed to mention what you mean by this.

Please demonstrate how this relates to the topic in hand, which is the (im)possibility of artificial consciousness.

Since intelligence is different from consciousness we should not be discussing that subject either, according to the rules and regulations of this forum.

People accusing me of not reading the thread, but they sure go easy on themselves.

The practical functioning has to do with models of all kinds. If you have a working model, that doesn't mean that your model is in any way indicative of the entirety of the subject you're dealing with. Complete models never exist in actuality- If that's the case then there's no way to build a complete model of anything that's conscious.

[Genady]

I am not ignoring that. But my question refers to the final outcome, i.e., after the device was designed and built, when it sits there in the lab and is turned on: 

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

[mistermack]

9 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

There's "no confusion" yet in your previous reply you stated effectively the opposite, indicating that it's a "fuzzy" and how some people use it some way and other people use it in others, what in the world was that even for?

Rubbish. I said that "natural" is a fuzzy word. Not "artificial" . You need to pay attention. 

 

11 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You said that "of course it can" and then left it at that. That's called "arguing by assertion." Back up what you said.

Of course it can, because consciousness is a blur, not binary, it goes from zero up to human (so far). So of course, a level above zero can exist. You prove it can't. That's in the thread title, isn't it? 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I am not ignoring that. But my question refers to the final outcome, i.e., after the device was designed and built, when it sits there in the lab and is turned on: 

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

Therein lays the rub. You're assuming that the device is built on the title question of "is it possible." I'm not, because my argument (if you even bother to read it) goes ground-up. You on the other hand, already presumes the answer.

You know what it is you're doing, right?

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Rubbish. I said that "natural" is a fuzzy word. Not "artificial" . You need to pay attention. 

 

Of course it can, because consciousness is a blur, not binary, it goes from zero up to human (so far). So of course, a level above zero can exist. You prove it can't. That's in the thread title, isn't it? 

Yeah, okay I'll ignore your rubbish for a second to say this:

You only stated effectively "consciousness is a continuum" and not "consciousness necessarily exist in all things"

That doesn't contradict anything I say.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Therein lays the rub. You're assuming that the device is built on the title question of "is it possible." I'm not, because my argument (if you even bother to read it) goes ground-up. You on the other hand, already presumes the answer.

You know what it is you're doing, right?

No, I don't presume the answer. I presume that humans have designed and built some device, which is quite a common practice. We don't know yet if it has consciousness. Then we turn it on. 

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness? 

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

People accusing me of not reading the thread, but they sure go easy on themselves.

The practical functioning has to do with models of all kinds. If you have a working model, that doesn't mean that your model is in any way indicative of the entirety of the subject you're dealing with. Complete models never exist in actuality- If that's the case then there's no way to build a complete model of anything that's conscious.

I did not mention the word model or ask you to build one, and I certainly have not accused you of not reading the thread.

As you say a model is never an exact replica of the real thing in all respects so what is the point of introducing them (models) ?

Post reported.

Edited September 14, 2023 by studiot

[Prometheus]

On 9/13/2023 at 8:07 PM, Mgellis said:

What are your thoughts on this?  Thanks.

You might be interested in the work of Michael Levin who, as i understand it, talks about layers of computation in organisms - organelles performing computations which in concert with other organelles perform computations at a cellular level and similarly up through tissues, organs, individuals and societies.

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You only stated effectively "consciousness is a continuum" and not "consciousness necessarily exist in all things"

Of course I wouldn't say that. That would be "argument by assertion". 🤣

[AIkonoklazt]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

I did not mention the word model or ask you to build one, and I certainly have not accused you of not reading the thread.

As you say a model is never an exact replica of the real thing in all respects so what is the point of introducing them (models) ?

Post reported.

Please report all you want. The mods can read through the entire thread, and if they are in any way decent, they'd know what's going on.

No, I'm not denying practical utility. That's not what it's about. I'm pointing out the requirement of a complete model.

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, I don't presume the answer. I presume that humans have designed and built some device, which is quite a common practice. We don't know yet if it has consciousness. Then we turn it on. 

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness? 

You know how a catapult works, so you need a law of nature to find out whether it's conscious? You are raising a moot question.

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Of course I wouldn't say that. That would be "argument by assertion". 🤣

Of course, you've said basically nothing that contradicted my arguments.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Please report all you want. The mods can read through the entire thread, and if they are in any way decent, they'd know what's going on.

No, I'm not denying practical utility. That's not what it's about. I'm pointing out the requirement of a complete model.

🙂

Congratulations you dodged the question yet again.

Goodnight All.

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You know how a catapult works, so you need a law of nature to find out whether it's conscious? You are raising a moot question.

How to find out if it has consciousness or not is a different question and I am not asking it. What I am asking is a simpler question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

[AIkonoklazt]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

🙂

Congratulations you dodged the question yet again.

Goodnight All.

Dodge what? There is a requirement of a complete model. Practical models don't need to be complete.

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

How to find out if it has consciousness or not is a different question and I am not asking it. What I am asking is a simpler question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

Uh, how to find out is the same question.

"Correlation does not imply causation" applies to physics. It's a scientific issue. You try to corner everything into "law of nature," so what "law of nature" is scientific knowledge? (as in "scientific knowledge" itself as law")

Edited September 14, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[swansont]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Satellite navigation, not satellite navigation system. Do you know the difference between the two?

My analogy is regarding deriving knowledge from practical effects.

This is in the actual text of the paper (one glance isn't going to help you or anyone here, as evidenced by this entire "discussion"):

The entire quote:

“The main sources of relativistic effects on GNSS are

relative motion between the satellite and the receiver,

potential differences between the satellite and the

receiver, and rotation of the Earth. The main relativistic

effects on satellite navigation are [49, 51]:

 time dilation

 time differences because of differences of the gravity

field

 relativistic effects on frequency

 relativistic path range effects

 relativistic Earth rotation effects

 relativistic effects due to the orbit eccentricity

 acceleration of the satellite in the theory of relativity.

There are more relativistic effects, but most of them

are too small to be significant in satellite navigation”

 

It’s clear you are quoting from a discussion of satellite navigation systems, your posturing to the contrary, but even without this, the fact that the author says “more” should tell you that there are relativistic effects that are big enough to matter.

If you were referring to the motion of satellites (orbital mechanics), why are you citing a paper on GNSS?

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Dodge what? There is a requirement of a complete model. Practical models don't need to be complete.

Uh, how to find out is the same question.

"Correlation does not imply causation" applies to physics. It's a scientific issue. You try to corner everything into "law of nature," so what "law of nature" is scientific knowledge? (as in "scientific knowledge" itself as law")

I see that you don't want to answer my question. It shows that you are a troll. There is no point to continue.

[AIkonoklazt]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

The entire quote:

“The main sources of relativistic effects on GNSS are

relative motion between the satellite and the receiver,

potential differences between the satellite and the

receiver, and rotation of the Earth. The main relativistic

effects on satellite navigation are [49, 51]:

 time dilation

 time differences because of differences of the gravity

field

 relativistic effects on frequency

 relativistic path range effects

 relativistic Earth rotation effects

 relativistic effects due to the orbit eccentricity

 acceleration of the satellite in the theory of relativity.

There are more relativistic effects, but most of them

are too small to be significant in satellite navigation”

 

It’s clear you are quoting from a discussion of satellite navigation systems, your posturing to the contrary, but even without this, the fact that the author says “more” should tell you that there are relativistic effects that are big enough to matter.

If you were referring to the motion of satellites (orbital mechanics), why are you citing a paper on GNSS?

Sure. the point is that there ARE relativistic effects that don't.

There is a need of a complete model, otherwise we're relying on producing symptoms via functionalism and behaviorism. Practical models don't have to be complete.

Doesn't matter where I'm citing the paper from unless the information is bad.

If I have to issue a correction inserting the word "certain" in front of the word "relativistic," sure. Doesn't change my point. I've contacted my editor.

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

I see that you don't want to answer my question. It shows that you are a troll. There is no point to continue.

You keep ignoring the crux of the issue and therefore you're a troll. Bye.

Edited September 14, 2023 by AIkonoklazt
editor contacted for term "certain"

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Sure. the point is that there ARE relativistic effects that don't.

There is a need of a complete model, otherwise we're relying on producing symptoms via functionalism and behaviorism. Practical models don't have to be complete.

Doesn't matter where I'm citing the paper from unless the information is bad.

If I have to issue a correction inserting the word "certain" in front of the word "relativistic," sure. Doesn't change my point.

I thought your point was that GNSS doesn’t rely on relativistic effects. If your point is that there are some relativistic effects that are small, that’s a very different claim. 

If that doesn’t change your point, you didn’t make your point very well. 

[Genady]

24 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You keep ignoring the crux of the issue

The crux of the issue is in the eye of the beholder. To me, the crux of the issue is in this question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and constructed device to have consciousness?

Here is a situation to compare. Somebody builds a very fast-moving device. There is a law of nature that forbids this device to move faster than light regardless of its design and construction.

Now, somebody builds a very sophisticated device. Is there a law of nature that forbids this device to have consciousness?

[AIkonoklazt]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

I thought your point was that GNSS doesn’t rely on relativistic effects. If your point is that there are some relativistic effects that are small, that’s a very different claim. 

If that doesn’t change your point, you didn’t make your point very well. 

The point includes the fact that no matter how coarse or fine a "difference" may be, underdetermination still applies to any model. "All models are wrong" still, "the map is not the territory" still. If performance is practical utility, then consciousness isn't in the picture because performance is regarding intelligence in the performative sense of the term, and not attributive. Otherwise, "artificial intelligence" is just one big gross misnomer as a term.

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

The crux of the issue is in the eye of the beholder. To me, the crux of the issue is in this question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and constructed device to have consciousness?

Here is a situation to compare. Somebody builds a very fast-moving device. There is a law of nature that forbids this device to move faster than light regardless of its design and construction.

Now, somebody builds a very sophisticated device. Is there a law of nature that forbids this device to have consciousness?

Someone "builds"? How about the knowledge to build it in the first place? You are ignoring engineering. If there isn't a complete model of X, you are relying on functionalism and behaviorism. There ISN'T a complete model, ever. Scientific underdetermination is always at work.

Edited September 14, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Someone "builds"? How about the knowledge to build it in the first place?

They build a device with whatever knowledge they have. Like people build computers, networks, quantum computers, space stations, Mars probes, etc. They build what they can.

So, somebody builds a device the best they could. It does something. They know that they don't have a complete model, but they have a question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids this device to have consciousness?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Genady said:

They build a device with whatever knowledge they have. Like people build computers, networks, quantum computers, space stations, Mars probes, etc. They build what they can.

So, somebody builds a device the best they could. It does something. They know that they don't have a complete model, but they have a question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids this device to have consciousness?

It does something, but that "something" isn't consciousness. it's performative intelligence. Read the argument. Again, you build a catapult. How do you know that it's not conscious?

[Genady]

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

It does something, but that "something" isn't consciousness. it's performative intelligence. Read the argument. Again, you build a catapult. How do you know that it's not conscious?

The question of how to know if the catapult, or other device, is or isn't conscious may come later. If there is a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness, then we know that it is not conscious, and the 'how' question is irrelevant. That is why the first question is:

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

The question of how to know if the catapult, or other device, is or isn't conscious may come later. If there is a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness, then we know that it is not conscious, and the 'how' question is irrelevant. That is why the first question is:

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

You got it backwards buddy. You need to know the necessary and sufficient conditions of X FIRST before producing X.

The ways of knowing comes now. The argument outlines it already.