Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Drakolyik t1_izh8ci9 wrote

Reply to comment by 4354574 in The technological singularity is happening (oc/opinion) by FrogsEverywhere

If something mimics consciousness perfectly, it's effectively no different than being conscious.

We cannot ever truly know if the other people we interact with are fully self aware, or if they're just sufficiently sophisticated organic machines that are mimicing consciousness.

I certainly know individuals that make me question whether or not they're actually conscious of their own decisions. Do they have that recursive learning software that reflects on choices they've made or do they simply run on what amounts to instinct?

17

Taron221 t1_izhitmt wrote

I think it's easy to sidestep the importance of emotions in consciousness because it's sort of a cliché in fiction.

Unsolicited curiosity, personal preferences, trivial secrets, want for recognition, hope for betterment, desire to learn, reflective anxiety, worry for others, and ambition that goes beyond self-preservation. These are all some things we would deem signs of consciousness, yet they all require an emotion. If you took away every single emotion and sentiment a person could feel, they'd probably die of thirst or neglect eventually.

Mimicry would be convincing, but it wouldn't be consciousness--it would just be software pretending it had emotions. Emotions and memories are probably the big two for identity & sentience, while levels of sapience come with intelligence.

16

geroldf t1_izicv5w wrote

Programming emotions into an AI is easy.

2

Taron221 t1_izighro wrote

There are some researchers who have attempted to program AI systems to simulate emotions or respond to human emotional cues---Marcel Just, Rana el Kaliouby, and Rosalind Picard, to name a few.

They have had some success, but emotions, as we comprehend them, involve a complex interplay between the brain, the body, and various hormones and chemicals. It is difficult to quantify if what the researchers are doing is imparting emotions, teaching cues, or, as u/Drakolyik said, simply programming a type of mimicry. Emotions are not fully understood by science.

But, in all likelihood, an AI that is programmed to simulate emotions is not experiencing them in the manner that humans do. That comes with the risk that it might behave in unpredictable, erratic, or harmful ways down the line.

Because of this, some argue that if you really wanted a True AI, a simulated human brain might be safer than a programmed AI. By simulating the structure/function of the human brain, it may be possible to create an AI that is capable of adaptive behavior without needing to program it to behave in certain ways. But that might make it more complex and difficult to understand or manage.

5

Handydn t1_izimcuz wrote

I also think there won't be a True AI until we fully understand how human brain works on a cellular, if not molecular, level. The current neuroscience research is not advanced enough to address these yet. Could AI in turn help with neuroscience research? I don't know

3

geroldf t1_izqpqoa wrote

Emotions are just different states of the machine where different computational priorities are emphasized.

For example in the fear state the emphasis is on safety and escape from danger. In anger it’s on attack. To implement them the weights are changed along the decision tree.

2

Taron221 t1_izv2z7k wrote

Those are purely reactionary definitions of fear and anger, though. Emotions come with a reward/punishment for decisions (guilt, sorrow, shame, embarrassment, etc.). Dopamine and other chemical releases are our reward and punishment whilst genetics & experience are our regulators of the amounts we get for every action. You could probably program a sort of self-calibrating regulator of reactions, which might give a sense of personality, but you can't reward or punish them in the manner you would biological beings.

2

geroldf t1_izvscii wrote

Everything is easy once you know how. We won’t be limited to our current state of ignorance forever.

1

4354574 t1_izhh049 wrote

Yes, the problem of other minds.

I'm simply conjecturing that if/when we do solve the hard problem, we indeed might actually be able to tell.

7

Drakolyik t1_izhq860 wrote

I personally don't think there is a hard problem. I find that is one of the last refuges for spiritual beliefs, hiding behind overcomplication. Consciousness is an emergent spectrum and proponents of the hard problem seem to believe there needs to be some part of the physical body to point at when it's really the sum total of a lot of different parts.

It's similar to how creationists are never satisfied with all of the evidence in favor of evolution. Always asking for a new missing link between the missing links we've already found. It'd be great to have a complete accounting of all parts of the evolution of species, but that isn't happening and consciousness is likely similar.

10

4354574 t1_izhr173 wrote

What proof do you have that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain? If you don't have proof, then don't frame it as a statement.

And even if consciousness emerges from the brain, there is still the huge tiny issue that we have *no idea* how electrical impulses become thoughts and emotions.

As for myself, I have seen and experienced far too many phenomena that we can't explain unless consciousness is nonlocal, so there's no point in trying to convince me otherwise.

4

Drakolyik t1_izhzidf wrote

I clearly said "I personally think...", Which means it's my opinion.

However, to say we have no idea how consciousness is probably an emergent property of different systems in the brain is kind of just ignorant of current knowledge in neuroscience.

It's like all this ancient aliens shit when anthropology has a pretty good idea of how human beings created the pyramids.

9

Entalstate t1_izrr9b8 wrote

Neuroscience doesn't have shit. A better analogy would be to say physicist have a pretty good understanding of God. Of course, that is nonsense, but no more so than the idea that neuroscientists have the foggiest idea of how subjective reality exists.

2

morderkaine t1_izi36un wrote

What proof do you have that it isn’t? The brain is all there is that thinks and makes us who we are and let’s us control our bodies. With the lack of anything else, consciousness can only be from there.

3

4354574 t1_izr0px7 wrote

No proof, just so much experience with psychic phenomena that it's mundane - except it can only be explained by a nonlocal mind. Or I'm really crazy.

So, crazy it is, eh?

Also, paranormal research meta-studies show a slight positive affect, indicating something interesting is going on. You won't find that on Wikipedia, though: the tiny cadre of editors that act as the gatekeepers of anything to do with the paranormal are hardcore skeptics who quickly delete any evidence from studies that others try to add.

Also, the only theory of mind that has any empirical evidence can be interpreted as allowing for a nonlocal consciousness.

Roger Penrose is probably the most brilliant person alive and he says that we need a new type of physics to explain consciousness.

"I don't believe in any religion I've seen, so in that sense I'm an
atheist. However, [...] there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective".

- Penrose

Basically, the kind of dismissiveness with which the subject of consciousness is often treated and the assumption that it's local are both unwarranted.

1

Skinny-Fetus t1_iziwhes wrote

I agree they haven't provided any proof of their opinion but they did frame it as just their opinion.

Regardless, I wanna point out what they say is still possible. Unless you can rule this out (aka prove it wrong), you can't say the hard problem of consiousness is neccasrily a problem

1

geroldf t1_izicxzh wrote

Exactly right. The “hard problem” is a red herring.

1

ConfirmedCynic t1_izjd9ej wrote

> If something mimics consciousness perfectly, it's effectively no different than being conscious.

It seems no different, not is no different. This is an external perception. I wouldn't call a society of machines in which everything functions perfectly convincingly but nothing is truly self aware as being equivalent to a group of human beings each with their own experience of consciousness.

We can, with confidence, assume that other people are truly conscious because they are made in the same way we are.

4

KasukeSadiki t1_izkv3zb wrote

I think that's why they said "effectively no different," as opposed to just "no different"

2

ConfirmedCynic t1_izl352t wrote

And I meant that they are effectively different. One is a universe that can experience itself, the other is just the same as non-existence.

2

KasukeSadiki t1_j04ilyj wrote

In this case I interpreted effectively as meaning that from our perspective there is no observable difference, as such it is effectively no different, even though there may be an actual difference.

1

KasukeSadiki t1_izkup7f wrote

Hell we can't even truly know if we ourselves are truly conscious

3

Drakolyik t1_izl4v0f wrote

I mean I could secretly be an alien that has code in my DNA or hidden somewhere that's triggered by being in a certain position or environment or situation. If it's sophisticated enough I may simply be mimicking behavior in order to blend. I could also be generating a simulation and none of this is real, or this is a distant memory that my true self is viewing from another dimension.

Truth being that we'll never know 100% what existence is, but I do believe that reducing suffering in this reality is important, even if none of this ultimately matters, because subjectively to us as individuals, it does matter.

3

KasukeSadiki t1_j04j1ct wrote

I fully agree. These questions of consciousness are interesting, but, like many philosophical questions, after a certain point the answers don't actually have any bearing on how we live, or should live, our lives as we experience them.

2

GetOutOfNATO t1_izhefu2 wrote

I'm thinking about this on a more fundamental level. Defining sentience as "the capacity for experience". You can't really know for sure if anyone (or anything) else is actually subjectively experiencing anything, besides yourself.

2

you_are_stupid666 t1_iziemuk wrote

Sure but that ain’t what is happening and to act like this is a logical defense of modern technology is asinine.

2