Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_irs0q6e wrote

When did I imply that you ever did though? Self Awareness being computational means human beings set a precedent, our brain being a self aware machine goes to show that evolution was able to give rise to something that was able to recognize itself.

> The argument of consciousness exists therefore AI can be conscious is dumb. It's like saying birds can fly therefore cows can fly.

Those aren’t even close to the same comparison, cows cannot fly because they have dense bone structure, birds fly because their bones barely weigh anything and they are able to generate enough lift to pull themselves off the ground, this is an engineering difference. Consciousness isn’t a trait unique to humans or any one animal, we see it in Elephants, Dogs, Horses, Chimps, Bonobos, Dolphins, Whales and many others.

Have you heard of Integrated Information Theory? It’s a model that has consciousness form from a set of parameters in combination with one another. This makes sense because babies aren’t as self aware as children or adults but those babies generally become more and more self aware as they become toddlers. If consciousness was some unique trait it would be stagnant, for the early years in humans, we see different levels of self awareness. This means self awareness is flexible.

12

visarga t1_irt7w5u wrote

> Have you heard of Integrated Information Theory?

That was a wasted opportunity. It didn't lead anywhere, it's missing essential pieces, and it has been proven that "systems that do nothing but apply a low-density parity-check code, or other simple transformations of their input data" have high IIT (link).

A theory of consciousness should explain why consciousness exists in order to explain how it evolved. Consciousness has a purpose - to keep itself alive, and to spread its genes. This purpose explains how it evolved, as part of the competition for resources of agents sharing the same environment. It also explains what it does, why, and what's the cost of failing to do so.

I see consciousness and evolution as a two part system of which consciousness is the inner loop and evolution the outer loop. There is no purpose here except that agents who don't fight for survival disappear and are replaced by agents that do. So in time only agents aligned with survival can exist and purpose is "learned" by natural selection, each species fit specifically to their own niche.

1

Think_Olive_1000 t1_is6e8p7 wrote

You can arrange rocks on a beach to have Turing completeness it doesn't mean that you moving them around will ever make them sentient. Sure the rocks can arbitrarily compute but they never form a cohesive experiencing machine or something that can simulate a reality of any kind on. When you move bits around inside a pc it's exactly the same.

https://xkcd.com/505/

0

Rumianti6 OP t1_irs3m6q wrote

>Self Awareness being computational means human beings set a precedent,

Set a precedent for what? For life specifically biological life because at the moment that is our only example and humans aren't the only conscious beings.

>Those aren’t even close to the same comparison

The point of the comparison is that they are different creatures with different attributes. AI and life are different from each other which is why we shouldn't make the same assumptions for the both of them especially due to lack of knowledge.

>Consciousness isn’t a trait unique to humans or any one animal

I already know this.

>Have you heard of Integrated Information Theory?

No I haven't, it is interesting but from I read about it, it isn't perfect. I wouldn't just assume this is the correct model. I do agree that there are different levels of self awareness in growing up. Also I never said consciousness was stagnant or a 'unique trait' whatever that means. IIT being correct doesn't mean AI can be conscious that is a huge leap, but something tells me you are going to start twisting the theory to fit your narrative.

−8