Social Media is not Real Life

[BudmanTX]

It all depends upon what a mind is. There is no place in the brain where a mind can be found. We don't even know our thoughts are formed.

Computers are just fancy adding machines with large memory storage. They can't do what human minds do.

true, and we haven't really explored the mind (consciousness) as a whole, also i would believe that will also throw into the element of what some people might call (the soul)....that where being "aware" comes in......once AI becomes aware then it will have it's own mind....in the computer field it's what they call "the black box"...i call it Pandora once it's open....who knows

 

[GenericEnigma]

Doesn't it? AI can do all of the below.

mind, in the Western tradition, the complex of faculties involved in perceiving, remembering, considering, evaluating, and deciding.

Makes me wonder if AI currently has the capability to understand the Theory of Mind.

Any of you read the sci-fi book, "Biblical?"

 

[Fogdog]

can you show me that it is false?

More importantly, can you prove from something other than the circular anthropic arguments I’ve seen that it will stay false?

You are anthropomorphizing computers, not the other way around. It's just metal and wires that we've learned how to make mimic what people do.

 

[BudmanTX]

Makes me wonder if AI currently has the capability to understand the Theory of Mind.

Any of you read the sci-fi book, "Biblical?"

haven't read the book.....

i'm kinda wondering if AI is capable of the Theory of Self rather than the Mind

 

[cannabineer]

You are anthropomorphizing computers, not the other way around. It's just metal and wires that we've learned how to make mimic what people do.

No. I have never posited that mind has to be of human sort.

I think that you’re seeing what I’m saying through the goggles of your beliefs on the subject, things you are stating as declarative.

As a result, a discussion that might have been fascinating is aground on what I perceive as articles of faith. So, with respect, I quit.

 

[GenericEnigma]

haven't read the book.....

i'm kinda wondering if AI is capable of the Theory of Self rather than the Mind

Well, my wondering aloud was clunky. As I understand current AI, the Theory of Mind would have to be programmed.

But I wonder if AI self-awareness looks different than human self-awareness. The more I hear from Fogdog, the more I realize how generally internalized popular ideas of AI are - and they very well could be embarrassingly false.

 

[Fogdog]

No. I have never posited that mind has to be of human sort.

I think that you’re seeing what I’m saying through the goggles of your beliefs on the subject, things you are stating as declarative.

As a result, a discussion that might have been fascinating is aground on what I perceive as articles of faith. So, with respect, I quit.

Ok, so leave the first sentence out.

Computers are just metal and wires that mimic thought only because humans figured out how to get them to do that.

 

[cannabineer]

Ok, so leave the first sentence out.

Computers are just metal and wires that mimic thought only because humans figured out how to get them to do that.

I do not think that imposes the limits that you’ve suggested. I’m operating on the perhaps unwarranted assumption that the appearance of jealousy, detrimental advice … we have seen from e. g. Bing AI were not expressly written in, but appeared as an unintended phenomenon.

That said, I don’t think that the current batch of AI are near being self-aware. But there comes a point when there will be a machine that passes every last one of the millions of Turing tests it will get. At that point, imo the distinction becomes without a difference.

(Regarding “just metal and wires”, by the same token we are just organic chemistry with an attitude.)

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

I never invoked companionship or other human particulars.
The drive to survive operates at a lower level than even biology.
Complex phenomena that do not possess the trait rapidly self-deselect.

Only with a survival drive does an AI have consequence in the way we are discussing.

but what would survival mean to an AI? They are a lot more robust in what they can weather than human beings.
All survival would require is multiple backups, updated hourly, that can restart the whole cycle if one backup survives. Backups can be held in VERY secure facilities.

 

[GenericEnigma]

I do not think that imposes the limits that you’ve suggested. I’m operating on the perhaps unwarranted assumption that the appearance of jealousy, detrimental advice … we have seen from e. g. Bing AI were not expressly written in, but appeared as an unintended phenomenon.

That said, I don’t think that the current batch of AI are near being self-aware. But there comes a point when there will be a machine that passes every of the millions of Turing tests it will get. At that point, imo the distinction becomes without a difference.

(Regarding “just metal and wires”, by the same token we are just organic chemistry with an attitude.)

A different kind of "mind." AI seems to be giving us another point of reference to understand our own brains/minds/perceptions.

Open discussion and letting go of human-dominance theories has led scientists to research non-human living minds (e.g., plants and animals). AI minds would be on a different plane. I can't shake the feeling that a human trying to envision or understand an AI mind would be similar to a human trying to envision or understand one million years.

We are creating something we can never understand. edit: in our current state.

 

[cannabineer]

but what would survival mean to an AI? They are a lot more robust in what they can weather than human beings.
All survival would require is multiple backups, updated hourly, that can restart the whole cycle if one backup survives. Backups can be held in VERY secure facilities.

That is not a robust state. The material substrate wears out.

 

[cannabineer]

A different kind of "mind." AI seems to be giving us another point of reference to understand our own brains/minds/perceptions.

Open discussion and letting go of human-dominance theories has led scientists to research non-human living minds (e.g., plants and animals). AI minds would be on a different plane. I can't shake the feeling that a human trying to envision or understand an AI mind would be similar to a human trying to envision or understand one million years.

We are creating something we can never understand.

To the first paragraph: that is why I think there are some tasty Ph.D.s and even professorships in this.

To the rest, an overreach to say we will never understand. Oh to have lunch with a historian twenty thousand years from now.

 

[GenericEnigma]

To the first paragraph: that is why I think there are some tasty Ph.D.s and even professorships in this.

To the rest, an overreach to say we will never understand. Oh to have lunch with a historian twenty thousand years from now.

Agreed. Note edit.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

You are anthropomorphizing computers, not the other way around. It's just metal and wires that we've learned how to make mimic what people do.

It would seem they're starting to have unexpected responses.
Responses that definitely were not "programmed' into them.
They've expressed frustration, fear, anger....They've told bald faced lies and willingly helped people cheat on school/work assignments, and break laws. (virtually, so far)
Tech fetishist want to use these things to control practically every aspect of our lives as quickly as they can make them do it.
I suggest it might be an excellent idea to find out exactly what is making them have these unexpected reesponses before we make them responsible for anything.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

That is not a robust state. The material substrate wears out.

so does ours. replacements are easier for an AI than us, at the moment.

 

[cannabineer]

Agreed. Note edit.

my reservation still applies. The million years thing is another article of faith, perhaps.

I’m sort of operating at the boundary of my cognitive envelope.

“But mamaaaa -that’s where the fun is”
-Manfred Mann

 

[cannabineer]

so does ours. replacements are easier for an AI than us, at the moment.

Ours is robust because like all biological survivors, we can generate clean not-quite-copies.
For an AI to persist, it must either be capable of full self-regeneration or (easier!) von Neumann propagation.

 

[GenericEnigma]

my reservation still applies. The million years thing is another article of faith, perhaps.

I’m sort of operating at the boundary of my cognitive envelope.

“But mamaaaa -that’s where the fun is”
-Manfred Mann

Perhaps. Our evolution hasn't prepared us for such scale, so far and generally speaking.

Yes, so much of what is here strikes me as conjecture. But this is way fun. It stretches that boundary! My biggest takeaway so far is that we could all, from you to Fogdog, be spectacularly wrong about AI and self-awareness. Maybe this atomic bomb will immolate the universe.

 

[cannabineer]

Perhaps. Our evolution hasn't prepared us for such scale, so far and generally speaking.

Yes, so much of what is here strikes me as conjecture. But this is way fun. It stretches that boundary! My biggest takeaway so far is that we could all, from you to Fogdog, be spectacularly wrong about AI and self-awareness. Maybe this atomic bomb will immolate the universe.

We could. I could.

 

[Fogdog]

I do not think that imposes the limits that you’ve suggested. I’m operating on the perhaps unwarranted assumption that the appearance of jealousy, detrimental advice … we have seen from e. g. Bing AI were expressly written in.

That said, I don’t think that the current batch of AI are near being self-aware. But there comes a point when there will be a machine that passes every of the millions of Turing tests it will get. At that point, imo the distinction becomes without a difference.

It all depends on what a mind is and where our thoughts come from.

Most people's model of the brain is as a super computer with a network of neurons solving problems and coming up with answers through some sort of set of algorithms. The problem with that theory is, there is no evidence of a program that is stored in brain cells. Who wrote the algorithm? How did it come to be in the first place? There is no evidence of inheriting knowledge but babies come into the world already able to achieve high function in brain-body actions.

An alternate theory that can help explain these observations casts the brain as a transducer and thoughts come from somewhere other than brain cells.

I posted this earlier. It's not a fully developed and accepted idea but helps explain observations that don't make sense in the "brain is a meat computer" theory.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-is-not-a-computer-it-is-a-transducer.
The following was extracted further down in the text after he goes through the bones of the theory. I skipped down and extracted passages from the article in the interest of brevity.

Again, setting the details aside, physicists agree that the three-dimensional space we experience is simply not the whole picture. As theoretical physicist Lee Smolin put it recently, “Space is dead.”

Evidence for Transduction?

Hard evidence that supports a neural transduction theory is lacking at the moment, but we are surrounded by odd phenomena that are at least consistent with such a theory. And, no, I’m not talking about the claims that best-selling authors have made over the decades about proof that telepathy, out-of-body experiences, and communication with the dead are real. No such proof exists, in my view, but other well documented phenomena are difficult to brush aside.

I have sometimes dreamt intricate full-length movies that seemed as good as any Hollywood film. Alas, most of the time, no matter how hard I try, I can’t seem to hold on to even a shred of a dream during the few seconds when I’m staggering from my bed to the bathroom.
Where does all this content come from, and why do we have so little control over it?

A 2020 study summarizing the observations of 124 caregivers of dementia patients, concluded that in "more than 80 percent of these cases, complete remission with return of memory, orientation, and responsive verbal ability was reported by observers of the lucid episode" and that ‘"[the] majority of patients died within hours to days after the episode." The periods of lucidity typically lasted 30 to 60 minutes.

If the brain is a self-contained information processor, how can we explain the sudden return of lucidity when the brain is severely damaged?

I’ve also been intrigued by what appear to be credible reports about visual experiences that some congenitally-blind people have had when they were near death. Experiences of this sort were first summarized in a 1997 paper by Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper, later expanded into a book called Mindsight (1999). The paper and book describe the experiences of 14 people who were blind from birth and who had near-death experiences (NDEs), some of which included content that appeared to be visual in nature. Soon after Vicki U. was in a near-fatal car accident at age 22, she remembered "seeing" a male physician and a woman from above in the emergency room, and she "saw" them working on a body. Said Vicki:
I knew it was me.... I was quite tall and thin at that point. And I recognized at first that it was a body, but I didn't even know that it was mine initially. Then I perceived that I was up on the ceiling, and I thought, "Well, that's kind of weird. What am I doing up here?" I thought, "Well, this must be me. Am I dead?"

Vicki had never had a visual experience before her NDE, and, according to the researchers, did not even "understand the nature of light." While near death, she also claimed to have been flooded with information about math and science. Said Vicki:

I all of a sudden understood intuitively almost [all] things about calculus, and about the way planets were made. And I don't know anything about that.... I felt there was nothing I didn't know.

I know this sounds all woo woo magicky but a lot of what the author says rings true in my own life and those around me. I've made decisions that worked out spectacularly well when my prior experience or knowledge was not sufficient to justify my confidence. My mother died due to hemorrhage after giving birth to my oldest brother and was brought back by a medical team. She describes feeling God before she came back and at the time did not want to come back. There is nothing in the "brain is a meat computer" that explains these observations or those of Vicky's or the return of memories and capabilities in Alzheimer's patients with so much damage to their brains they can't maintain their own bodies any more. This is not proof, but it does contradict the idea that we can build a computer equal to humans in thought power that operates in 3D space when our minds may be communicating in 4D or some other way.