I just heard that:
Geoffrey Hinton, (the godfather of AI,) 75 has just resigned from his post with Google. He helped to design the systems that became the bedrock of AI. But the Turing prize winner now says a part of him regrets making them.
There certainly does seem to be two intrenched camps on either side of the current AI debate.

You did not misread my remark, but perhaps I continue to misunderstand your position regarding AGI.
Perhaps it's your regular use of 'posthuman,' or/and your, in general, more pessimistic view of the future of humanity.

In his discussion, in the video, with 3 other folks involved in the area, you will find that Jeff, does not currently hold the same opinion as you do, regarding the threat of AI developments towards AGI.
He certainly thinks that significant threat exists but I would also suggest, that he thinks we humans, are capable of countering them. He could of course be quite wrong in that view.

I will have to now buy Jeff's 'thousand brains book.' YOU keep adding to my homework sir! :rofl:
I recently completed The memoirs of Ulysses Simpson Grant.
My current read is my second reading of Brian Green's 'The Elegant Universe.' (I first read it 15 years ago)
After that, I have TPF member @Vera Mont's book 'The Ozimord project,' to read, then Sean Carrol's 'The Biggest Ideas in the Universe, VOL 1! (two more to come!), and now!
Jeff Hawkins 'A thousand brains.'
This is beginning to impact my weekend drinking time!!!!!! :halo:

neuroscientist Jeff Hawkins titled A Thousand Brains which summarizes 'lessons learned' from his own company's research on AGI. — 180 Proof

Have you watched this?

I watched it last night. It's 2 hours 35 mins, but worth the investment.
The term emergence/emergent was used quite a bit.
I enjoyed the little insight it gave me into the work of neuroscientists and Jeff's 'thousand brains theory.'
Brain reference frames and movement models, the brains use of maps/graphs, cortical columns, grid cells, place cells, vector cells, etc, etc.
This video is easily due it's own thread but I don't know if TPF is an adequate place for such a thread.
Obviously a neuroscience site would fit much more.
Few here would be willing to invest the time involved imo.
I certainly think it's content would help make theists feel more and more uncomfortable as they continue to try desperately to hold on to their woo woo, ancient fables and present them as facts.
God did this! Just seems more and more 'silly.'
I would personally need, to watch this video a few times to gain better insight however.

Additional: I will now have to update my personal, previous, Paul Maclean model of the human triune brain, to Jeff's thousand brain model based on cortical columns.
WHEN I SAW HIM draw the little circles on paper and start to draw connecting communication lines between them. I said HEY, that looks like he is starting to draw a topology of a fully connected mesh network of computer nodes!! The amount of crossover between the mechanisms this video describes and computer science is very strong imo.
@noAxioms, @Count Timothy von Icarus, @Alkis Piskas, @bert1, @Isaac, @Benj96, and of course anyone else here on TPF, that might find Jeff Hawkins work (as introduced to me by @180 Proof) as interesting as he, and now I, do.

:100: :up:

Are we an evolutionary apex? Can we exemplify enough of what we might claim are improvements throughout our history on this planet, that shows it is good, that we still survive and grow as a species.
Would it be 'bad' if we go extinct?
I don't really care about good and bad, as notions, in the face of evolutionary fact or in the face of any new technical ability our species might invent and activate, other than the fact that we must deal with such subjective judgements, personally and as a local, national, international and global group.
You either believe we can continue to 'improve,' or we are truly f*****.
We are the best creators that actually exist, no other existent, that we currently know of, can create an aeroplane, an atom bomb, a fantasy story or a space shuttle.
We are the only existent that we know of, capable of perceiving an asymptotic goal, of reaching a so called 'apex of creation.' That's why we invented silly but understandable (due to primal fear) ideal's such as deities.

Fair enough.

Why not?

That's ok, you are free to bail out anytime you wish.

Sure, if you feel that change would better fit it's content.

Then try to analyze, for example, the retrieval of information by a computer. — L'éléphant

That's called the fetch-execute cycle and happens to the clock pulse of the clock line of the 'control bus' (not really a bus, as the lines operate discretely).
Each line below occurs serially, within a single clock pulse.

1. The processor sets up the address bus with the address of the memory location to be accessed.
2. The read line of the control bus is set high by the processor
3. The data/instruction resident at the memory location currently on the address bus is copied onto the data bus and is sent along to a memory data register, by the processor.
4. The processor will then transfer the data to a general purpose register or directly to RAM space or it will decode and execute, if it is dealing with an instruction rather than a data item.

This all happens WITHIN time slices(durations).

The size of a tree is nontemporal, so is the brightness of a light bulb. — L'éléphant

Sure but it took you a duration to type that, or to even think it, so your perception of a tree size or brightness, is temporal in the sense of your own perception time/duration.

Even if you (can) consider the biggest reference frame of perceiving the universe as single system, then that system will have a temporal aspect to any observer, as it did have a beginning, it does have a duration, and via entropy, it will 'disassemble.'
The idea that the tree height has a non-temporal frame of reference to entities such as us, is relative imo.

"where he leads a team in efforts to reverse-engineer the neocortex"
:grin: What a brilliant Job!

You should try to emulate @Mikie and try to contact Jeff and see if you can convince him to be a guest speaker on TPF. That's a schooling I would love to experience!

@180 Proof
Do you think there is any progress offered by labelling 'consciousness' a system?
From Wiki:
A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole. A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and is expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory and other systems sciences.
Systems have several common properties and characteristics, including structure, function(s), behavior and interconnectivity.

A system is dynamic, and can be purely energy based (such as the system of photons,) or consist of all, some or no physical components.
Was the big bang singularity, fundamentally, a system? So there was never a 'time' when only one fundamental ever existed, as a singularity is/was a dynamic system with properties such as density, temperature, extent etc.

A system has functionality and the fact that it is dynamic, means it can 'process' and produce output.
So the question now becomes, Is/was there ever a system that was irreducible, in the sense that it cannot have ANY functionality of any significance to conscious beings, if it did not have the properties required to inflate/expand into becoming this universe. Would the properties of hot, dense, concentrate of dynamic energy with extent, be the ONLY notional system that makes any logical sense from the 'naturalist' viewpoint, as an irreducible fundamental.

I think the biggest problem about trying to understand the source of human consciousness is that we are trying to understand the source of consciousness, using consciousness. But there seems to be no other tool available.

Put lipstick on your Jesus blow up doll if you wish but you don't need to tell the world about it.

Jesus will have you for a sunbeam sonny! Having a purpose to look forward to must be wonderful for you.

I am sure you will 'categorise' those on TPF you clash with in your on way and in your own time.
I am meeting folks in town for a wee Saturday pub crawl. Have a good day Eugen!

Its a good exemplar for you Eugen and good fun for me.

What are you talking about now? Is there a sale on in your favourite crucifix shop?

Might be better to simply focus on the TPF members you prefer to exchange with Eugen.

You seem a little sexually obsessed. Can your god not help you with that?

Did your god tell you to try again to communicate with me?

But any thread about fundamentals offers a path to theism as theism posits that THEE fundamental is god! It's not unreasonable for interlocuters to probe you and ask if you are a theist based on what is invoked by your OP, surely you don't find that an unreasonable line of questioning on a thread such as this one.

Did you not notice that I ran way past you, ages ago! Do yourself a favour and stop responding to or referencing me. You will cry less!

So is he suggesting that assuming ''anything you could think of" has properties is wrong? Does he want me to formulate a question about something with no properties? I don't really understand. Of course we're talking about properties. — Eugen

No, he just does not think your questions are very good but maybe he is choosing to be disrespectful to you as you have typed disrespect towards him.
Who started what, rarely matters. If you cannot find common ground or tolerance with each other then, you can mostly ignore each other. There are some members of TPF who I will now not exchange with directly, unless absolutely compelled to. Probably most members here feel the same way about certain other members. C'est la vie.
On occasion, I have even 'made up,' with some members when I have discovered they were not the complete f***wit, I thought they were. Again, c'est la vie.

What does my question have to do with theism?!?! My question is about a simple model that people use to debate consciousness. My question is if there are alternatives to this model. I can't see how this simple question can make no sense. — Eugen

Stop assuming that every sentence I type in response to you is about you, I mentioned theism to illustrate a point I was making about becoming jaded.
You have plenty of members on TPF you can exchange with in the ways that suit YOU. Work with that and respond to @180 Proof as you choose to (within the guidelines of the site of course). He is quite thick skinned himself , he can take it.

Water off a duck's back, but you imo, represent yourself on TPF as little more than a troll.

Also watch out for his bum chum universeness I have no doubt they’ve been fantasising about future robots in their PMs so they’ve really started to get close. — invicta

I think the mods should keep an eye on your postings, you are such a bitter wee sweetie.

what do we know (or do not know) about "consciousness" that presupposes it is an ontic entity? Nothing as far as I (& neuroscientists as well as e.g. Hume, Spinoza, Buddhists) can tell — 180 Proof

I broadly agree with this. In the field of Computing science, ontology is used all the time, to name and categorise data types and data structures, that will be employed in a particular system, at the analysis and design stages.

From Wiki:
In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the subject.

I would assume that neuroscience can 'categorise,' using an 'ontic' approach as most academic fields can make use of 'ontology' to 'categorise.' BUT, I do agree that so little is known about what causes consciousness, that naming and defining categories, properties and relations between such as neurons, synapses, dendrites, microtubules etc merely offers a beginning to solving the hard problem.

1. Does ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity"?
2. If ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity", does this make my question nonsense?
3. Be super-honest guys: is my question nonsense or ↪180 Proof opinion is simply wrong?
I really need to know that, so I can fix things. — Eugen

For 1. Yes, because whatever 'anything' you choose, you will need to go on to "encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse." to provide any kind of logical argument, that your 'anything' is fundamental, emergent or indeed, an emergence that is a 'by-product'/emergence, due to fundamentals interacting as combinatorials.

For 2. No, not nonsense, but due to impatience, or due to becoming a little jaded, based on what a very knowledgeable person, in a particular field, might be faced with time and time again, I can understand why such a knowledgeable person might blurt out 'NONSENSE!' I have done so myself on occasion, especially against such as the old, ad nauseum, repeated BS claims of theism or antinatalism.

For 3. I have found @180 Proof's posts to be very rarely, wrong, in any of the academic points he makes, or definitions he cite's. I may not agree with some of his personal interpretations he employ's, but he has consistently demonstrated prowess, in the knowledge he has, regarding the topics he choses to post on.
You have not yet gained such accolades imo on TPF. I would take @T Clark's advice if I were you.

Here's the right approach - write a good, well supported OP. Layout what you want to discuss. Have good arguments at hand. Listen to what other people have to say and be responsive. — T Clark

You are taking @180 Proof's critique of your efforts too personally. In the world of on-line public debate, You need a thick skin, and plenty of personal humility.
Don't break, bend and contort, to better protect yourself from stormy weather.

Let's assume a traditional all-poweful/good/knowing God exists. — RogueAI

Or we could just decide that this imaginary god has never existed and any trolly problem style scenario's/dilemmas, are ALL OURS and ANY individual faced with such a dilemma, will simply have to make a decision, and act as they decide to act, and explain it afterwards.
Dilemmas happen in everyday REAL human lives, all over this planet. The acts of the people involved will have their supporters and dissenters, and everyone who learns of the story, will have something else to gossip about.
No freaking scapegoat god is required to take responsibility from us! it's Just us humans! it's up to us! WE make the decisions about what to do when universal happenstance dilemmas or deliberately created dilemmas, come our way. Sometime there is very little or no choice at all, involved, but no matter, it's all part of our lives.
If god existed then sure, it would be a great scapegoat, but then we will forever be a baby species that remains unable to ever grow up!

Oh, I get what you mean now. I think you are saying that you posted your question again, before you read that 180proof had already answered it. I did the same thing once, so, c'est la vie.

Saw it. — Eugen

Saw What?

Theists (and there are still vast numbers of them) consider god a valid 'fundamental' source for consciousness. God is also posited as irreducible and eternal, so I don't see why you would suggest your reason 1.
Reason 2 is fair enough but even that would have been a valid response to the three questions I posed, rather than me having to re-request a response.
I remain in hope that at some time soon, you will reject your agnostic label, and join us atheists, who have freed our will and thoughts from the notion of the machinations of a completely hidden (actually non-existent imo,) divine scrutineer.

. Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational? — Eugen

HE ALREADY DID SO!!!!

Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational?
To my mind 'fundamental' connotes ontological reductionism (i.e. metaphysics re: entities) and 'foundational' connotes methodological reductionism (i.e. science re: explanations). With respect to "consciousness", is it – I prefer mind – 'foundational', or methodologically irreducible (i.e. cannot be reduced to – explained by – a substrate of processes or properties)? Neuroscientists like the philosopher Thomas Metzinger demonstrate that mind can be explained reductively (e.g. self model theory of subjectivity) – as a system of brain functions, and therefore, is not 'foundational' for knowledge of mind (i.e. metacognition) or even, upon critical reflection, not 'foundational' for subjective experience (re: nonordinary / altered mental states). — 180 Proof

Additional: :100: :up:

At least I treated you, by offering you a listen at a fab Ting Ting song, by way of compensation for any bruised ego I caused you. :halo:

I understand that position, and have described my own similar frustration at times, via our recent PM.
I see some value in us both encouraging each other to maintain a consistent approach.
In hindsight, I would have been better to discuss the particular, small issue I raised publicly with you here, by PM. I will do so in the future if such should arise again.

You declared yourself an agnostic to me (in a PM), so is there any reason why you have not answered my recent questions to you? You complained, by insisting that @180 Proof had not answered your questions to him, to your satisfaction. I even gave you some support on this, so why have you not answered my questions at:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/803366
or
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/803368

I think your response at:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/803443
has redressed the imbalance, or lack of detail, that remained after your two posts that you linked to in your above post.
I was making a loose comparison with @Gnomons refusal to answer YOUR questions sufficiently, based on my opinion, that you could be accused of doing something similar. The brevity and lack of explanation in the two linked quotes from your post above, confirms that imo.

Anyway, apparently @Eugen, is rather selective in which of my own questions, HE decides to answer.

What credence level do you personally assign to the proposal that an eternal CAN exist?
and if you assign a high credence level to such a proposal, how willing are you to assign it 'consciousness'/self-awareness or an agent with intent and purpose?

I certainly agree that an eternal would be fundamental, but a fundamental need not be eternal, as no fundamental particle currently known or described in science, is considered eternal.
How much credence do you assign to the projected, eventual heat death of our universe?

But it seems to me you cannot accept a thing that could be eternal and fundamental at the same time. Why? — Eugen

To me, the concept of 'fundamental' allows for more than one to exist. Multiple eternals create too many 'omni' problems, such as omnipotent or omniscience. To be eternal you have to be indestructible. I cannot imagineer a purpose to more than one eternal, as I cannot imagineer what their relationship would be to each other. Of course, this might just be due to my lack of imagineering skill.

I cannot think of something that has two fundamentally different properties. — Eugen

Binary on/off is certainly two states but I agree they are 'states' of a single object.
The UNIverse either is or is not, but it's existence is the only notional 'eternal' I give any credence to.
That's why I like cyclical universe theories such as Roger Penrose's CCC.

Fair enough. I can only offer you my own musings on what you are asking.
My attempt at answering your first question, would be, only that which can be confirmed as eternal could seem to fit imo. No such existent has been confirmed so the notion of 'eternal' remains 'imaginary' only, for now until overwhelming empirical evidence is found.

I think my answer to question 2 is the same as my answer to question 1 but I would suggest that that which was proved to be eternal in of itself, could not have 'parts' so would be 'irreducible.'

Can we find something outside the fundamental-reducible/irreducible? — Eugen

Not 'inside' this universe or even in a multiverse imo.
Theists would use this gap to employ an ontological argument for the necessity of a god plug.
I do not know of any law of thought, that demands such a necessity.