Support NeoGAF

[haxan7]

What do you think neogaf? Can AI achieve consciousness?

tl;dr from the video: science will eventually explain what consciousness is and if can computers have it, but right now we don’t even know how to pose the question.

That’s the summary of this discussion between the host of a long-running PBS series and Harvard professor/sleep researcher Robert Stickgold:

 

[Burning Blade]

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't know if computers can become conscious, but they probably can. If they appear to have all the hallmarks of consciousness, then who's to say they don't have it? Even we don't know what consciousness really is fundamentally.

 

[SentientStone]

I was watching this series of videos months back, then I realized it's all going in circles.
In the end we will realize it was MGS Matrix all along, consciousness is God and you are God. That's what that dude who took those psychedelics to reach God consciousness taught me through youtube.

 

[IDKFA]

Voted no.

The reason we have consciousness, complete with complex emotions, intelligence and communication skills is down to the result of millions of years of evolution.

You'll never be able to replicate this in a machine. As I've said before, I don't doubt we'll achieve a convincing replica, but it would be a cheap imitation of a human.

 

[TTOOLL]

I’ll watch the video but in the meantime I’ll leave this recommendation here purely based on the thread title.

It’s an amazing book I read earlier this year.

Amazon.com

 

[Maiden Voyage]

I voted no but we really don't understand it. Our own understanding of programming is fairly immature too. I think humanity will be gone before we have the chance to really explore it, tbh.

 

[Ballthyrm]

Voted no.

The reason we have consciousness, complete with complex emotions, intelligence and communication skills is down to the result of millions of years of evolution.

You'll never be able to replicate this in a machine. As I've said before, I don't doubt we'll achieve a convincing replica, but it would be a cheap imitation of a human.

We can fly, yet we aren't birds.
Maybe consciousness is like that.

We will build the airplane version of consciousness. Not like our own but consciousness nonetheless.

 

[Kraz]

In some models, yes. In others, no.
That's just equivocation though.

The question comes down to what I currently favour. I vote yes since the human face of consciousness appears to only be sustained by physical processes.

So many philosophical implications...

 

[John Bilbo]

 

[IDKFA]

We can fly, yet we aren't birds.
Maybe consciousness is like that.

We will build the airplane version of consciousness. Not like our own but consciousness nonetheless.

We can all define flight and know what it means to fly.

For this topic, I suppose we need to agree what consciousness is.

It's a difficult topic and one that has been the result of many philosophical debates.

We can do a Google search, which comes up for me as:

Consciousness refers to your individual awareness of your unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations, and environments. Essentially, your consciousness is your awareness of yourself and the world around you.

That doesn't really help the discussion because it doesn't tell me what consciousness actually is, such as what are it's physical properties. Is it biological? Is it something that only humans experience?

 

[Ionian]

My logic professor made a very convincing argument for no. Wish I could remember what he said now, was fascinating to listen to.

Convinced me anyway.

 

[crazepharmacist]

Voted no.

The reason we have consciousness, complete with complex emotions, intelligence and communication skills is down to the result of millions of years of evolution.

You'll never be able to replicate this in a machine. As I've said before, I don't doubt we'll achieve a convincing replica, but it would be a cheap imitation of a human.

what about millions of years of technological advancement? Computers have really only existed for what? 100 years? What kind of technology do you think we will have if you give it a million years. It will be unimaginable. Especially if you consider it is inevitable that we will eventually be able to enhance our own intelligence with silicon. I think we will be able to replicate consciousness. Just give it enough time

 

[PuppetMaster]

When I was much younger, in my teens, I would have definitely said yes.

Now many many years later both studying and working with computers I am no longer so sure.

We may eventually get there. But I no longer expect it in my lifetime.

With all the advances we havr made with computers and neutral nets and machine leaning. All we have clarified is how difficult of a problem it is.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Biology isn't magic. There's no reason why non-biological consciousness shouldn't be able to emerge, at least in theory. Will we ever get there? Who knows.

 

[IDKFA]

what about millions of years of technological advancement? Computers have really only existed for what? 100 years? What kind of technology do you think we will have if you give it a million years. It will be unimaginable. Especially if you consider it is inevitable that we will eventually be able to enhance our own intelligence with silicon. I think we will be able to replicate consciousness. Just give it enough time

We don't know what consciousness really is, as in what are it's physical properties in order to replicate it.

Sure, in a million years we might have this answer, as well as having Dyson spheres sprinkled around the galaxy, time travel and faster than light transport, but that's just speculation.

In the current time frame, I can't see it being possible.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Voted no.

The reason we have consciousness, complete with complex emotions, intelligence and communication skills is down to the result of millions of years of evolution.

You'll never be able to replicate this in a machine. As I've said before, I don't doubt we'll achieve a convincing replica, but it would be a cheap imitation of a human.

If evolution is the pre-requisite for consciousness, then machines will definitely reach it at some point. Machine learning is (very fast) evolution.

 

[IDKFA]

If evolution is the pre-requisite for consciousness, then machines will definitely reach it at some point. Machine learning is (very fast) evolution.

Actually, I take back my original statement. We don't know what consciousness really is, so I can't really say if it's a product of evolution.

To answer that, we'd have to know that it had an evolutionary purpose. I'm not qualified to answer that. What do you think? Do you think consciousness is the product of evolution, is it part of human biology, or is it something else we haven't discovered yet?

 

[AJUMP23]

I do not think a machine could become self aware.

 

[Fbh]

I guess I agree with the tl;dr text.
When there's still so much we don't know about human consciousness it seems rather pointless to try and give a definitive answer about machines being able to achieve it

 

[Bernd Lauert]

What do you think? Do you think consciousness is the product of evolution, is it part of human biology, or is it something else we haven't discovered yet?

All of the above. It clearly evolved. It's by definition part of human biology (if you don't have consciousness, you're not human). And we still don't really know what it exactly is or how exactly it happened.

This means, at least today, that we can't build it. But there's a chance that it spontaneously emerges. The irony of all this is that even if it emerges, we can't really prove or disprove it. The Turing test is a meme, and when you really think about it, how are you sure that your fellow humans are conscious? Maybe they're faking it.

 

[IDKFA]

All of the above. It clearly evolved. It's by definition part of human biology (if you don't have consciousness, you're not human).

Put there are people are don't have consciousness. People in comas or in vegetative state for example, yet they're still human.

Also, does a new born baby have consciousness, or is it just a state of wakefulness to work basic body functions such as breathing for example.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Put there are people are don't have consciousness. People in comas or in vegetative state for example, yet they're still human.

It's not that easy tbh. We don't know if people in comas are conscious, there are many cases where they wake up and then claim they heard people talking to them etc.

Only if a person is literally braindead we can be sure that there's no consciousness.

Also, does a new born baby have consciousness, or is it just a state of wakefulness to work basic body functions such as breathing for example.

Strictly speaking, a baby doesn't have consciousness until it develops a sense of self, but what makes it human is the fact that it's expected of the baby to develop that consciousness.

 

[IDKFA]

Only if a person is literally braindead we can be sure that there's no consciousness.

Strictly speaking, a baby doesn't have consciousness until it develops a sense of self, but what makes it human is the fact that it's expected of the baby to develop that consciousness.

When you mean brain-dead, you mean a vegetative state right?

Also, we can agree that babies don't have a consciousness, regardless if they develop one later. Yet, both examples are real and are human examples, but they also don't have consciousness.

I'm not being difficult. I'm just trying to get to an answer we can be satisfied with.

 

[synchronicity]

I believe the entire universe is conscious, so anything arising from it is, already, conscious in a sense.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

When you mean brain-dead, you mean a vegetative state right?

No, vegetative state is before certain brain death. It's a difficult topic, afaik it's also legally kind of a grey area.

Also, we can agree that babies don't have a consciousness, regardless if they develop one later. Yet, both examples are real and are human examples, but they also don't have consciousness.

What I mean is they're human because they have the innate ability to develop and have consciousness.

I'm not being difficult. I'm just trying to get to an answer we can be satisfied with.

We cool.

 

[Kraz]

I believe the entire universe is conscious, so anything arising from it is, already, conscious in a sense.

I really like panpsychic models.

The thread got me thinking about the inspirational output from human consciousness in regards to the presence of light from visible stars. What that phenomena could mean philosophically to consciousness stripped of organic processes and at various natural and ai scales.

Since the Hyades are rising toward midnight zenith.


Look to Aldeberaan just outside the Winter Hex. The waning Moon sweeps by in a few days.

 

[synchronicity]

I really like panpsychic models.

The thread got me thinking about the inspirational output from human consciousness in regards to the presence of light from visible stars. What that phenomena could mean philosophically to consciousness stripped of organic processes and at various natural and ai scales.

Since the Hyades are rising toward midnight zenith.


Look to Aldeberaan just outside the Winter Hex. The waning Moon sweeps by in a few days.

I've mentioned the concept of synchronicity numerous times here on gaf. (see username) I've had so many "impossible" experiences in life that point to a living universe, an aware universe. I have found a symmetry, a mirroring of consciousness, a mirroring of the personal (if there really is such a thing) reflected in the universal. It's as if all things are aware of all things.

One of my favorite books on the subject:

 

[EruditeHobo]

I don't know if computers can become conscious, but they probably can. If they appear to have all the hallmarks of consciousness, then who's to say they don't have it? Even we don't know what consciousness really is fundamentally.

If we don't know the specifics of what it is, beyond it being an emergent property of sufficiently advance brains, then yeah... it stands to reason we don't know when/if/how it might be "developed" by AI.

But it feels to me, a layman, that it's a very, very, very, very long way away. Pretty sure they're still working the kinks out of, like, basic spatial awareness and motor skills.

 

[Physiognomonics]

Depends what we mean by biological (and non-biological). But yes, the future of life is artificial consciousness without any biological (as defined currently) shackles.

Still, I voted no to the simplistic poll. We need better wordings of the subject.

 

[EruditeHobo]

I've had so many "impossible" experiences in life that point to a living universe, an aware universe. I have found a symmetry, a mirroring of consciousness, a mirroring of the personal (if there really is such a thing) reflected in the universal.

What do you mean? Because it is beneficial for humans to recognize patterns and find meaning in them. So are you talking about like... coincidences? Because to link the impact of those kinds of things in your own life to the idea that the universe is all mirrored or connected to your personal feelings/experiences is a gigantic leap.

It's as if all things are aware of all things.

In what way? Which things? In what way is the ice on the surface of Europa aware of humanity on Earth?

 

[NeoGiffer]

 

[p_xavier]

I believe the entire universe is conscious, so anything arising from it is, already, conscious in a sense.

Same, if I'm conscious, the universe is conscious by default. Especially that solar systems and galaxies could be basically the neutrons and protons equivalent of a bigger scale system.

 

[synchronicity]

What do you mean? Because it is beneficial for humans to recognize patterns and find meaning in them. So are you talking about like... coincidences? Because to link the impact of those kinds of things in your own life to the idea that the universe is all mirrored or connected to your personal feelings/experiences is a gigantic leap.



In what way? Which things? In what way is the ice on the surface of Europa aware of humanity on Earth?

Meaningful "coincidence". When something happens apparently "at random" and is yet deeply personal and full of meaning, it is a synchronicity - a whisper from the universe, a mirroring of the macro reflected in the micro, however you might phrase it. I don't know your familiarity with the subject, but if it's not something you're well-versed in, Jung is always a good starting point.

To answer your second question is more of a philosophical question that is often best answered via Eastern philosophy and/or religion...the idea that all is one, duality is an illusion. The mind draws lines around things where there really are none. It creates labels of a you and a me, a here and a there, a now and a then. It's just the nature of mind to categorize and affix definitions, to separate. There's nothing wrong with that, it's what minds were designed to do, but minds are blind in their inability to see the bigger picture as it's always placing things in their own "boxes".

 

[EruditeHobo]

Ah. I see.

I don't find much use for that, in this specific context, which is a discussion about things which may (or may not) threaten to happen and be apparent/verifiable within reality. Seems a little woo-woo for the purposes of this IMO, like Chopra talking about how cells have consciousness... but that said it's interesting to think about.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[synchronicity]

Ah. I see.

I don't find much use for that, in this specific context, which is a discussion about things which may (or may not) threaten to happen and be apparent/verifiable within reality. Seems a little woo-woo for the purposes of this IMO, like Chopra talking about how cells have consciousness... but that said it's interesting to think about.

Thank you for clarifying.

Sure I understand. There's an unsubstantial or impractical quality about the immeasurable that irritates the mind about non-duality. I didn't mean to derail. Just wanted to answer your questions.

 

[SidViscous]

The other side of this is if you split a brain in two and put it into two bodies, would it become two consciousnesses or remain just one?

It's a bit like Ship of Theseus too, if you replaced every cell in the brain with a chip, cell by cell until eventually it just has one real brain cell left - does that one cell contain all your consciousness?

The answer seems obvious to me, that consciousness isn't a thing at all - it's just what we call all the electrical noise our biomechanical brain makes whilst working. Everything probably has one, but depending on the machine/system it's just unrecognisable to us. The noise of the rustling leaves on a tree could be its consciousness...

 

[EruditeHobo]

Sure I understand. There's an unsubstantial or impractical quality about the immeasurable that irritates the mind about non-duality. I didn't mean to derail. Just wanted to answer your questions.

No worries, you didn't derail -- I asked so you could clarify for me.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Big fat "don't know." It's one of the mysteries of philosophy that is just inherently this kind of Cartesian unkowable. I know I'm biological and I have consciousness and other biological beings seem to as well, but I can't ever know what it's like to be a machine.

 

[I_D]

Can it exist? Absolutely. The human brain is already a fancy computer. Creating the same thing out of a different material is certainly feasible.

I expect, within the next 50 years (and probably much sooner), you will be able to have a highly-convincing conversation with an AI.
Within the next thousand? Who's to say what can be achieved?

We still have a LOT of questions to answer. There are so many variables involved in the development of the brain; and no two are identical.
It will be quite a while before we can create a legitimate consciousness from scratch. I don't see why it won't happen eventually, though.

 

[BigBooper]

I don't think so. They will get better at fuzzy logic processing and finding solutions to problems they've never seen before, but I don't imagine they will question why they are looking for the solution.

 

[jufonuk]

I was watching this series of videos months back, then I realized it's all going in circles.
In the end we will realize it was MGS Matrix all along, consciousness is God and you are God. That's what that dude who took those psychedelics to reach God consciousness taught me through youtube.

 

[Amiga]

No.
Machines are just automations that do preset things. the more complex the presets the more they can seem conscious, to an extent that they can trigger empathy. but this is no different than empathy towards characters in stories. it can be very passionate but ultimately they are just fictional characters.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Fake it till you make it. There'll be a long window of time where it's essentially mimicking for the appearance of consciousness. There will come many points in the future and variations of conscious entities being discovered or developing on their own. Animals are conscious, there's evidence of trees having parallel/primitive forms of consciousness and things like AI based on organic processing, neural networks and more that will each progress throughout the human ages. Likely beyond humans too.

There's also a blurring of definitions and lines to come in the future. What of transferring human consciousness to non-biological systems? A hybrid model if you will. Just another variation on what will inevitably come.

 

[Bill S. Preston Esq.]

I’ll watch the video but in the meantime I’ll leave this recommendation here purely based on the thread title.

It’s an amazing book I read earlier this year.

Amazon.com

Just got it on kindle! Cheers!

 

[darrylgorn]

Consciousness is just an awareness of something. It doesn't take much to exercise that.

 

[Rickyiez]

No because AI in games are getting dumber