By: Blake Stacey

Blake Stacey — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:59:49 +0000

Different people have described Penrose’s “theory” of consciousness to me as bad physics, bad neuroscience, bad computer science or a combination of all the above. For an explication of the computer-science part, see this paper by Solomon Feferman (Stanford University):
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-07-feferman.html
And for the REAL reason Turing was killed, see Charlie Stross’s novel THE ATROCITY ARCHIVES.

By: Alone

Alone — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:27:24 +0000

One test for consciousness would be the ability to have an unconscious, though this might exclude animals. Another test might be to be able to go insane, i.e. create a formal structure of logic which is internally consistent, yet incompatible with reality.
Could AI become paranoid and starve itself?
The problem of the unconscious to AI is a serious one. We may know the red octagon to mean stop, and AI can be taught this. But can AI be taught to have a momentary hesitation at something that looks like a stop sign, but isn’t? And can AI then make unconscious associations to this sign– say, fear because it recalls a previous accident?
The main problem with the argument of consciousness is that it is entirely dependent on our definition, which is recursive. We define consciousness in a certain way, because it is dependent on what we say it is. you can’t tell if a computer has consciousness or not because the question is undefined. Does the computer have consciousness? Which part of the computer? And what part of consciousness? You may as well ask if the computer uses oxygen (sort of). In other words, the question isn’t a question; it’s an analogy.
It is possible to understand everything about Microsoft Word. But nothing allows you to predict what I will type there. That’s the problem of consciousness.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com

Comments on: A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines

By: Blake Stacey

By: Alone