Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Prediction

I am puzzled about the idea of consciousness being associatd with prediction. I thought that perhaps it meant anticipation in the short term, i.e. immediate cogent reaction to imagined possible events (including internal events as might emanate from thought processes). Can anyone explain, in relation to consciousness, what is being predicted and by whom, and why this is thought to be an essential component of consciousness? Matt Stan 08:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In accordance with my Concise Oxford Dictionary, "anticipate" in the wider sense means "foresee", "regard as probable" etc, so it means the same as "predict" ("foretell"). Except that there is no such thing as a synonym in English. There are far more words in English than in some other languages. Every word is coloured with a different set of meanings from every other word, which means that as one refines meaning on some topic then it can become apparent that there is a better word to use, or at least to help to distinguish between matters under discussion. Anticipate does not mean the same as predict. To anticipate is to behave in a manner borne of interacting with the environment to take account of a variety of outcomes in any given situation. To predict is to make a statement about the future which might be true or false at the time that the prediction is made. Matt Stan 11:38, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)) The difference of the word "anticipate" is that it has a narrower meaning "deal with before the proper time". If you talk about immediate reaction to imagined events, then you most likely consider that meaning. No, "predict" is not used in that sense in AC. In the paper I added to NPOV version, Igor Aleksander talks about "Ability to predict changes that result from action depictively". It's also said in paper by Rod Goodman and Owen Holland www.rodgoodman.ws/pdf/DARPA.2.pdf that "Good control requires the ability both to predict events, and to exploit those predictions". Why we need to predict changes what result from action is that we can then compare them with the events what really happened, what enables us to control the environment and ourselves (ie act so that we can predict the results of our action). This is also important for training AC -- the system tries to predict an outside event, and if this event indeed happens, then that gives it a positive signal. What is necessary for that is imagination, ie generating all relevant possibilities for certain case, for what the system must be very unrestricted. And what is also necessary is some sort of "natural selection" so that only these models (processes) survive, what fit in their environment. So the events are imagined not in order to react to them immediately, but they are stored to exploit them later, the time when the predicted outside event should occur. Tkorrovi 18:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that Ability to predict changes that result from action depictively is a bit too abstract for an encyclopedia, but your subsequent explanation gets the point across. I'm not sure, however, that the heuristic process that you describe above regarding learning is necessary for consciousness per se, although it is important for artificial intelligence, and I'm concerned that we shouldn't confuse the two - though they must indeed go together to some extent in any implementation. I think your point is perhaps important for a machine that has to learn, and therefore might be important in order to attain consciousness, i.e. part of the engineering/programming process aimed at achieving consciousness. However, once consciousness has been achieved then the ability to go on learning is not essential in order for consciousness to continue. I can remain conscious in a totally chaotic environment in which it is not possible to predict anything accurately. You seem to be saying that it is my constant and continuous attempts to predict what is going to happen next, moment by moment, every moment, that are a defining part of my consciousness. Whilst I am writing this, you might say that in the process of making my utterances I am having to predict what I am going to write next. But I would put that differently. I don't predict what I am going to do - I just do it, in what is called a stream of consciousness. Therefore I still question whether predictive capability has to be accepted into the definition of what constitutes AC. Matt Stan 19:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Almost all "potential" AC systems (neural networks, genetic algorithms etc) are trainable, ie the abilities are not necessarily attained during engineering/programming process, but during training, so necessary condition to have certain ability is to be capable to achieve that ability. It's the same with humans, the only possibility to achieve certain abilities is to learn from childhood, so abilities what enable us to learn are important part of our consciousness, especially thinking. You said "I can remain conscious in a totally chaotic environment in which it is not possible to predict anything accurately" -- are you sure, many people loose their mind during chaotic periods like wars. And you must think what you write before you write, maybe this is part of stream of consciousness, but then it necessarily don't exclude prediction. That predictive capability is necessary condition for AC is a view of several scientists, therefore it must be included in the article. And other views, what you support, must be included too. Tkorrovi 20:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's Ok to cite authorities to back up one's own understanding. But it's no good citing authorities to back up one's lack of understanding or lack of capability to put across one's understanding. I keep trying to work back to a definition of consciousness which is exclusive of the things one associates with consciousness but which are not the same as consciousness. I disagree with Paul about inanimate passive objects possessing consciousness, e.g. a thermostat. I have to work from a human model, as this is the only real thing one can relate consciousness to. A new born baby is either conscious - while it is awake, or unconscious, while it is asleep. Is that not a good starting point? Can anyone disagree with that and if so on what grounds? Now a new born baby, with its mind half formed, has an enormous capacity for learning, but it doesn't become more conscious as it grows up; it stays conscious while it is awake and unconscious while it is asleep, right thoughout its whole life. It learns to think, it learns to anticipate, but what it starts off with, which it has right from the start and never leaves it throughout its life, is the ability to be attentive, first to its parent who feeds it, to sounds, to colours, to movement. It does none of these things while it is asleep. Surely this is the basis upon which we can start to define simple consciousness. Never mind what abstract scientists may have said, which none of us can understand. We can't write about things we don't understand - only things that we do understand. Matt Stan 01:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"A new born baby is either conscious - while it is awake, or unconscious, while it is asleep. Is that not a good starting point?" Not at all. If we want to model mental abilities of the functioning human being, then we must define consciousness in the widest possible sense, from consciousness to be a totality of all mental abilities, otherwise the model will not be very good. This is why in many cases at least thinking is considered to be an aspect of consciousness. This is the view I support, but this doesn't mean that I consider the views of others a lack of understanding. There are different and often opposite views, and even in two opposite views, something may be right in both Tkorrovi 12:21, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This hinges on the word "necessary". Anticipation is a very useful, desirable attribute for a conscious being to have. But that does not mean it is a necessary attribute of consciousness. I agree with tkorrovi about all the advantages of anticipation, just not that it is necessary. That it is necessary has not been shown. Desirable, yes. Useful, yes. Necessary, no. Therefore that is supposedly necessary does not merit a prominent, headline, first definition position in the article. Paul Beardsell 09:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Passive Inanimate Objects and Consciousness

If a human is passive then it can be conscious. So, "passive animate objects" can be conscious. If all "inanimate objects" can not be conscious then the big question is answered and, in my view, we can go home. So, passiveness disqualifies an inanimate object from consciousness but not an animate one. Which is just too blatant an adoption of a priveleged position to be allowed.

But only one of many. Luckily, for my argument, the thermostat is not passive.

Paul Beardsell 09:06, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't intend passive inanimate object to be contrasted with passive animate object, but rather with active inanimate object. Need perhaps to define inanimate in this context. Are you suggesting that the thermostat is an animate object? I'm not sure what you mean by a human is passive. If someone is acting in any capacity then surely that person is being active. One can obviously act passively in relation to a particular circumstance, but the generic active surely applies to someone whilst they are alive - whilst their blood is pumping they have some level of activity. You could even suggest that they actively decompose after they are dead, I suppose. And of course you could say that any object above absolute zero comprises active atoms. I had merely intended to use active in the sense that electronic engineers do when distinguishing between active components (such as semiconductors) and passive components, such as resistors and capacitors - the distinguishing factor in this case being that active components gain their salient properties by being driven in a specific manner (gain, for example, in the case of a transistor) whereas passive components have no such requirement to be driven in a particular manner (e.g. resistance in the case of a resistor).

Merging "digital sentience", "artificial consciousness" and "artificial consciousness NPOV"

I merged digital sentience into artificial consciousness NPOV (first attempt). It was easy to do word by word because of a structure of artificial consciousness NPOV version where different views are clearly separated. artificial consciousness NPOV was made based on the artificial consciousness article with everything essential (except two or three most recent additions) incorporated. My proposal is to make the merged article based on artificial consciousness NPOV version as it would result in more clear article with better structure. My suggestion is, if supported, please merge what you find not included from "artificial consciousness" into "artificial consciousness NPOV" and then the new version would be copied and pasted to main article. Tkorrovi 24 Mar 2004

I merged everything what was missing from main article to artificial consciousness NPOV. Please add if I missed something, then artificial consciousness NPOV would be merged into artificial consciousness and edited later (I think it should be shorter). Tkorrovi 24 Mar 2004

The merger is done. I added everything from previous version and from digital sentience. I copied the previous version also to [1] for it to be easier to look at it and add text, if found that something indeed was omitted in merged version. Tkorrovi 19:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Suggest another merge might be in order becasue discussion has been continuing in the original location. Please don't leave behind any duplication, because after your previous attempt, I didn't realise what was going on and carried on editing at the place my watchlist told me had been edited last. Matt Stan 11:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Usually, when merger is done, then talk page is also copied. I wote a message that it was done. But it's OK to discuss on any talk page, only then if you like it to be here too, you either must copy new messages to this talk page, or just put a link to that discussion on this talk page, I shall not make any further duplicates. Tkorrovi 13:34, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't revert my edits. Read the manual of style. The NPOV guideline is unnecessary. You are not supposed to use bullets in articles. Finally, your "NPOV" edits make the article more POV. ugen64 21:04, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I, and perhaps some others, don't agree with you, your edit rather made the article more POV. I consider your opinion, but I don't necessarily take it as advice. BTW, I read this in the manual of style: "in these circumstances where there is not enough text to justify a sub-heading, it may be preferable to use bolded text or bullet points within a section instead of using sub-headings". Tkorrovi 23:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no instance in the article in which there was little enough text to justify using bullets. Also, stop linking to useless articles such as ability and predict. You are supposed to link to articles that would clarify or be useful to readers. I think everyone who can understand the concept of artificial consciousness knows the meanings of ability and predict. ugen64 20:51, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Make only careful use of generic attributions ("Critics say ..."). Some Wikipedians describe these as weasel words, because they can make claims look less obscure or less controversial than they are. In general, when something needs attributing, be specific. (Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial). You should revies all of the statements that start with "Some say", "Some assert", etc.: that's indefinite citation.

Also, none of my edits affect NPOV in any way. They are all GRAMMAR or WORD CHOICE edits. I was fixing your grammar, not making substantial edits to the actual content of the article. ugen64 21:02, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

For example: "Test may fail just because the system is not developed to the necessary level or don't have enough resources such as computer memory." In what way is that a sentence? Test should be preceded with either the or a. "system is not developed"... "don't have enough" - subject-verb agreement is absent. System is singular; you can't say "system don't have enough". etc. etc. The only actual edits I made to the article were where you said, "AC system must theoretically be capable of passing all known tests" etc. etc. That's not true; what are "all known tests"? Does that mean it has to pass the SAT II? The test for getting into the military? What if I made up a test that was, "this machine must grow into a monster and eat the Moon"? It would be known, it would be relevant, but obviously an AC wouldn't have to pass it in order to be considered an AC. Changing the wording into "some", "should", etc. isn't POV; it's a fact. ugen64 21:05, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

The article predict is not useless, it is a very good article.

"Some say" is not weasel word, it says clearly that this is not a common opinion. "Critics say" is different, because it may refer something to be commonly accepted. BTW all sentences where "some say" occurs, are not written by me. I proposed NPOV structure, where we don't have to write "some say", but would just list different views what are there. (I don't agree with a lot, including the whole "Strong AC", but I didn't change it, leaving for reader to decide what he prefers).

Concerning your edits, please look at the changes, they are not only grammar edits.

But I'm not against grammar edits. System "doesn't" have enough, sorry, I also make sometimes some small mistakes, like everybody, this is why copyedit is necessary.

"AC system must theoretically be capable of passing all known tests" -- was never written there, you critisize something what nobody never said.

Possibly it was never written in exactly those words but it was written by Tkorrovi more than once. Later he said what follows. Paul Beardsell 03:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What was said was that "AC must be theoretically capable of achieving all known objectively observable abilities of consciousness of capable human", as a view what differs from "Weak AC" in that weak AC must achieve only one ore more such abilities. This doesn't say and doesn't mean that AC must pass all tests. Such system itself may even be not very complicated, all what that means is that it must be theoretically be built based on right concepts so that it can be trained to achieve any of the known and objectively observable abilities. These are not necessarily only tests by what we may establish that a system is AC, but theoretical concepts it is based on, and some tests what confirm what these concepts predict. Nobody ever said that it must pass all possible tests. BTW, this description was also not only written by me, but also by other people (I explained it earlier on this talk page), and to use "all" there was insisted by other people, because only such requirement may make it a "Strong AI", and this is the meaning of that approach, this is what differentiates it from "Weak AC", what is equivalent to "Weak AI". Tkorrovi 22:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, one question. Did you ever pass all tests what capable human should be able to pass? No I think. But does it prove that you are not capable human? No. You pass only the tests you need to, and you know that you are able to learn to pass other tests. Some particular AC system would also not be used (and therefore trained) to do everything, most likely it would be used for some purpose, and it must pass tests what prove that it fits for that purpose. But theoretically it, like human, can learn to do many other things. That "all" determines that range, for it not to be only two or three. AC may have much less capability than human, because it has much less resources, and because it is not required to simulate other abilities than only these what are known and objective. And we don't know *very* much. In fact I think that the AC systems what really would be used, would not be very complicated at all, maybe some special regulators etc. So the difference would only be the theoretical concepts by what they are built. Like such regulator would be able to regulate some process as well as human can do that, something what almost no existing regulator can do (they even used neural networks in regulators, but even these cannot model the processes). Tkorrovi 23:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blasphemy

People don't have to take the test. We know we are conscious, and don't have to prove it to anyone. The test for whether I am conscious, if any were required, is that I ask you 'Am I conscious?' and you say 'Yes'. If you say 'No' then I know you are lying. You might say 'I'm not sure', meaning that you are not sure whether I exist, i.e. that perhaps I am only a machine. People take it for granted, and have to take it for granted, that what they know as their own self-awareness is experienced similarly by other people as their self-awareness. When we talk of tests, we are only talking of how artificial consciousness is to gain a semblance of reality, and of course, self-awareness as you or I know it cannot be tested, which is why it cannot be one of the pre-requisites for artificial consciousness. Tkorrovi, what is your first language? Matt Stan 23:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We know what capable human is able to learn. For example we know very exactly what children of different age are able to learn, not only whether they "are conscious" or "are not conscious". For a man there is much to prove to be considered a capable human. Concerning my first language, I first want to know why that question was asked, we talk about artificial consciousness here. Tkorrovi 00:03, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My first language is English. I don't think yours is. We are conversing here in English. Others have remarked on your syntax. I am interested in your different perception of certain matters to do with consciousness. If consciousness is itself partly an illusion, as I have suggested, then culture might make us susceptible to different illusions, and our expression of them through different modes of language. Any knowledge I had of your first language, or could acquire if I knew what it was, might help in my interpretation of your idiosyncratic prose. Matt Stan 19:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some quotations written by unnamed on the Ugen64 talk page:

"...tkorrovi is either a troll or very misguided. From my experiences on UseNet, I would say his behavior is very trollish and would most likely be dismissed as such if the argument were happening on UseNet." "Claims to be acting reasonably, but shamelessly reverts other people's edits (pehaps because he suspects new editors to be aliases of the person who originally pissed him off, but still). Also a common troll tactic; try to claim you are being reasonable despite all appearances to keep people on your side as long as possible." "Another difficulty with his posts is that his English is below the general standard of Wikipedia, yet he often insists on having his wordings preserved exactly, regardless of whether the edit is a semantic difference or merely correction of grammar, spelling, style, etc.."

Is it all self-evident when my nationality happens not to be English? Tkorrovi 22:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not think these characteristics are typical of any nationality. Paul Beardsell 04:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes but when nationality happens to be estonian? Tkorrovi 10:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From my little knowledge of Estonian people - I once had an Estonian landlady for several years - I'd say that an Estonian troll is a highly unusual occurrence. Therefore Tkorrovi cannot be Estonian :-) Matt Stan 11:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please stop the blasphemy! Show me one example that causes you to think that I am a troll. I have not the slightest idea of the cause of all that blasphemy. One reason I can possibly conceive is my nationality. I may be a person you or somebody else doesn't like. Not everyone likes everyone, but I don't write blasphemy in every possible place about people I don't like. Please say what you want from me, I cannot figure out what would please you. Sorry if there was anything what I did wrong. I have the courage to say sorry. A simple statement from you that you stop calling me a troll would end the argument. What would it cost you to say that? Please understand that we cannot seriously discuss anything if we become personal. Then it would not be a discussion about the topic, but rather a discussion about our personal qualities. This is pretty much the reason why it was impossible to discuss things on the talk page and which caused an edit war. Please think about it, what should we discuss now, the question of whether I am a troll or not? Tkorrovi 13:36,

10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've corrected the English in the paragraph above. There is nothing wrong with Tkorrovi. There is no such thing as an Estonian troll. The Estonian people are very proud of their unique language and the contribution that their nation has made to world culture. I do not decry your nationality - only your use of English. You seem to use the dictionary as the sole source of reference. It is not. There is grammar and correct usage that may not be found in a dictionary alone (at least not the Concise Oxford - go for the Shorter Oxford at least). That is why we make the distinction between artificial and simulated, real and genuine, predict and anticipate, and so on. I am also interested that someone from a different culture may indeed have a valid and different definition of consciousness because of his different cultural identity. I am interested for instance in the fact that Estonian has no future tense. Does this affect one's appreciation of the meaning of the English word 'prediction'? Does having no future tense imply a different consciousness about what the word future actually means? Unless we can be clear on our definitions of simple words and overcome whatever language barriers there are, and be aware that they exist, I fear that the assertion that Tkorrovi is a troll might persist. I aim not to use ad hominem arguments, so there is no question of blasphemy. Who is accused of blaspheming against what, anyway? Matt Stan 16:29, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So you continue to talk on the topic of whether I am a troll or not: "Unless we can be clear on our definitions of simple words and overcome whatever language barriers there are, and be aware that they exist, I fear that the assertion that Tkorrovi is a troll might persist." -- *stop* it. Estonian has no future tense, but this only means that what is said like "I shall do it sometimes later" is said like "I do it sometimes later" and it means exactly the same -- something shall be done in the future, only a peculiarity of the grammar and no difference in thinking. Estonian is similar to Finnish (I can speak Finnish also) and there is no future tense either, nobody yet said that this somehow influences the thinking of the Finns. Concise Oxford Dictionary has often been chosen as a basic dictionary for international agreements, ie only the words from that dictionary may appear in these agreements. This is why that dictionary is a kind of standard and preferred over the others. English being your first language is your advantage, but many Wikipedia articles in English are written by people whose first language is not English, including some featured articles, so also don't overestimate that advantage. I'm not proud to be Estonian, but this has nothing to do with the discussion here whatsoever, if your only intention is to disregard me, then please leave alone me and my nationality. Tkorrovi 17:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What we need around here is an anthropologist. Anybody? Paul Beardsell 18:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What we need here is a human rights lawyer, if even that helps to keep order here. Tkorrovi 18:37, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am happy to confine vocabulary to keywords in the Concise Oxford Dictionary in order to avoid obscure words, but when it comes to definition and coloration of words, then one needs to cast a wider net. The advantage of having English as a first language, if such is an advantage, is merely to know what is correct usage, whereas others are not always so confident. This doesn't give me a problem in the Wikipedia context, because one can always go in and correct someone else's grammar/syntax. So it's no big deal. Difficulties can arise, though, when the intended meaning of a non-native speaker is unclear. I think that has happened here. (I'm much clearer now on prediction having read Tkorrovi's explanation about modelling within a closed loop process control system.) Matt Stan 09:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I rather think that the topic is complicated and difficulties may arise from that, especially when the discussion is often much too fast, with no time to think enough your response. It's of course sure that the native speaker can express himself faster; in very fast discussion the non-native speaker is certainly at a disadvantage. Otherwise, nobody has yet said that my English is very bad. For example, I translated this http://www.highpark.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dallas/pressxpress1998.htm for High Park Records, a record company in Canada (rubbish as it is, but I mean the language). Tkorrovi 16:00, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am hesitant to criticise at all in a public arena such as this, as it is not likely to be fruitful. (Adage: Praise in public; criticise in private.) Another criticised Tkorrovi's English, and I followed that up by making some suggestions. I am also bashful about criticising the English of someone who has evidently spent considerable time learning a language that is not their own - so who am I to criticise? However, when it comes to plain understanding, I think we are making progress, albeit rather verbosely, and I wouldn't make any further criticisms anyway. As for speed, well, we can take our time in Wikipedia - no one forces us to respond immediately. Matt Stan 20:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is an established maxim of communication theory that if we do not meet face to face, but through some other medium, such as electrically, then there is no way that I can communicate with you unambiguously to distinguish left from right. A possiblity always exists that you could be living in a mirror world where everything is back-to-front but I am unaware of it and you are unable to discern that I am unaware of it. Matt Stan 11:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)