Look it up. — Sir2u

Sure. Here's a pdf copy; and here's an html one. (Context for others... these are links to Alan Turing's article "Computer machinery and Intelligence", 1950, which introduced what's now regarded as the Turing Test).

So an AI would need — Sir2u

That's reasonable; since it would involve more things, it likely would involve more code.

Computer learning has come a long way — Sir2u

Well, yeah, it has.

But one thing that most people seem to forget about — Sir2u

"Forget" is a strong word; that implies not remembering something said. Cite?

"Forget" is a strong word; that implies not remembering something said. — InPitzotl

Sorry about that, definitely badly worded. I have been busy in classes all day and just skipped a few minute to drop in here at lunch. Let me rewrite that part.

But one thing that most people don't seem to realize when talking about the theoretical P zombie is that it is not written anywhere that it has to be a physical object, only that it has to be able to convince real people that it is a real person. A hologram would probably be able to do that.

Is that the only problem?

Then you mistook what I was asking for. I wasn't asking for a rough idea, but a specific one as you seemed to know the specifics if you can behave like the arbiter of what is conscious and what isn't. If you've already determined that you must be a human to be conscious, then you've answered your own question.

Your qualifiers were waking/sleeping and being human. P-zombies fit the former but not the latter, therefore p-zombies being conscious is false.

If you're going to restrict the discussion to only humans then you're not going to agree with my definition, but then that would exclude p-zombies from the discussion as well, and your thread is inadequately named. — Harry Hindu

Firstly, why are you so coy about your definition of consciousness?

Secondly, I'd like to know what your analysis of the Turing test is vis-a-vis consciousness and p-zombies? The Turing test would have us believe that behavior alone (of the AI) suffices to come to the conclusion that the AI is conscious. Compare and contrast that to the p-zombie in which case, if a p-zombie is possible, behavior alone is insufficient to infer consciousness.

Compare and contrast that to the p-zombie in which case, if a p-zombie is possible, behavior alone is insufficient to infer consciousness. — TheMadFool

The problem with p-zombies is that they can debate consciousness in just as nuanced a manner as a philosopher like Chalmers or any of us discussing our everyday subjectivity. I find that bordering on incoherent.

So my assumption would be that if an AI can pass a robust Turing Test on consciousness, then it's probably conscious like us. But it has to be robust, and not just clever programming techniques. Humans are easily fooled since we have a tendency to see agency in things.

The problem with p-s is that they conflate consciousness and thought. Zombies do not have problems.

The characteristic of consciousness is not a good line in bullshit, but giving a fuck.

So anyone not blinded by their own bull, has no difficulty recognising the consciousness of someone with Downs, or a cat or a bird. Philosophers and world leaders are the difficult borderline cases.

The problem with p-zombies is that they can debate consciousness in just as nuanced a manner as a philosopher like Chalmers or any of us discussing our everyday subjectivity. I find that bordering on incoherent. — Marchesk

But why is it "bordering on incoherent"?

not just clever programming techniques. — Marchesk

What do you mean?

What do you mean? — TheMadFool

"Siri, what's the temperature?"

"It's 20 degrees outside. Brrrr, cold."

But why is it "bordering on incoherent"? — TheMadFool

Think about a p-zombie telling other p-zombies about a dream they had. Now what could the dream teller mean, and what would the listeners understand, given that they have no dream experiences?

Or take a movie like one of the Terminator ones where at some point you see the world from the first person perspective of the terminator. Now how would a p-zombie understand that?

The p-zombie has no consciousness per definition. On the other hand, nobody has proven that a sheet of aluminum does not have feelings. So what was the point again? Ah yes! We can define things to have a certain property or not and then "prove" that it has it or not. Pretty scholastic.

The following equality based on the Turing test holds:

Conscious being = True AI = P-Zombie

If so, we're forced to infer either that true AI and p-zombies are conscious or that there is no such thing as consciousness. — TheMadFool

Starting from the fact that we cannot agree on just what is consciousness and have big problems in deciding just what is and what isn't conscious, it's hardly surprising that even a brilliant mind like Turing would be vague on the subject.

After all, a far more simple and theoretical issue like calculation, computability / uncomputability puzzles us still quite a lot.

Yet the the proponents of computers and computer theory have been very willing to declare AI to be actuality even now, whereas many laymen still consider real AI to be that truly conscious robotic chap that indeed has a mind of it's own. Needless to say, a smart program can pass the Turing test many times. But with luck a clever recording would do that also sometimes...

Starting from the fact that we cannot agree on just what is consciousness and have big problems in deciding just what is and what isn't conscious, it's hardly surprising that even a brilliant mind like Turing would be vague on the subject. — ssu

I guess the point was: something is intelligent, if it is called intelligent because it appears to be intelligent.
The judgement is already made by people, not by some arbitrary criteria. :lol:
The written form of communication was chosen to prevent a bias based on seeing a human or not.

One of the best points is made in Gibsons "Neuromancer"
Case: "Are you sentient?"
AI: "Well, if you ask me then I am. But I guess that is some kind of philosophical question. hrhr"

Intelligent?

Firstly, why are you so coy about your definition of consciousness — TheMadFool

Because you've restricted the domain of the discussion to humans.

One of the possible answers to "what is the definition of consciousness" is, "I dont know". From there we dont assume that it is necessary to be human to be conscious.

Secondly, I'd like to know what your analysis of the Turing test is vis-a-vis consciousness and p-zombies? The Turing test would have us believe that behavior alone (of the AI) suffices to come to the conclusion that the AI is conscious. Compare and contrast that to the p-zombie in which case, if a p-zombie is possible, behavior alone is insufficient to infer consciousness. — TheMadFool

What type of behavior is indicative of being conscious? Any human behavior? What about sleeping?


And what did we end up concluding here:

What does it mean to be physically indistinguishable? Are there other ways of being distinguishable or indistinguishable?
— Harry Hindu

Good question but how might I word it to be more explicit than that? Perhaps physical in the sense that the p-zombie has a head, trunk, limbs, internal organs - identical in every sense of bodily parts? — TheMadFool

If there are no other ways for something to be distinguishable or indistinguishable, then "physically" is a useless term, at least in the context of the distinguishable and indistinguishable.

Maybe the dichotomy between the physical and mental is just as useless and should be considered when defining consciousness.

Is consciousness something you have, something you do, or something you are?

I guess the point was: something is intelligent, if it is called intelligent because it appears to be intelligent.
The judgement is already made by people, not by some arbitrary criteria. — Heiko

The reasoning in Turing's test is quite similar to yours: that we'd just notice it, because we are conscious. Yet the fact is that appearances can be deceptive.

Think about a p-zombie telling other p-zombies about a dream they had. Now what could the dream teller mean, and what would the listeners understand, given that they have no dream experiences? — Marchesk

del

Think about a p-zombie telling other p-zombies about a dream they had. Now what could the dream teller mean, and what would the listeners understand, given that they have no dream experiences? — Marchesk

Are you saying that certain behavior, e.g. talking about dreams, thoughts, feelings, etc, is sufficient to infer the presence of consciousness? If so, how do you reconcile your point of view with the Turing test which basically claims that all a computer has to do is mimic a person, converse with us as if it has dreams, feelings and thoughts while not actually experiencing them? I mean the Turing test suggests, in no uncertain terms, that consciousness isn't necessary to be a human.

Because you've restricted the domain of the discussion to humans. — Harry Hindu

Into what other areas would you like to extend this discussion into? I'm game.

Starting from the fact that we cannot agree on just what is consciousness and have big problems in deciding just what is and what isn't conscious, it's hardly surprising that even a brilliant mind like Turing would be vague on the subject.

After all, a far more simple and theoretical issue like calculation, computability / uncomputability puzzles us still quite a lot.

Yet the the proponents of computers and computer theory have been very willing to declare AI to be actuality even now, whereas many laymen still consider real AI to be that truly conscious robotic chap that indeed has a mind of it's own. Needless to say, a smart program can pass the Turing test many times. But with luck a clever recording would do that also sometimes... — ssu

If Turing thought that a computer AI has only to mimic a human to qualify as conscious then it seems he would also think the p-zombies are conscious.

If so, how do you reconcile your point of view with the Turing test which basically claims that all a computer has to do is mimic a person, — TheMadFool

To say that a computer mimics a person is already defining consciousness as something that can simulated or emulated. Can consciousness be mimicked or is it that wherever some behavior exists consciousness necessarily exists and can't be something that is mimicked?

Awesome. I'm looking forward to your response to the rest of my post that you just quoted, and one after that.

To say that a computer mimics a person is already defining consciousness as something that can simulated or emulated. Can Consciousness be mimicked or is it that wherever some behavior exists consciousness necessarily exist and can't be something that is mimicked? — Harry Hindu

It seems that Turing thought that behavior of an entity is adequate grounds to believe that entity to be conscious. Chalmers, because he thinks p-zombies are possible, doesn't share Turing's sentiments.

If Turing thought that a computer AI has only to mimic a human to qualify as conscious then it seems he would also think the p-zombies are conscious. — TheMadFool

Did he have that in mind? I haven't read his papers well enough to make that specific conclusion. If you have a direct quote, feel free to enlighten me.

Because, again, how do I know I'm not responding to a very clever bot here either, but another human being?

I can make the argument that your responses seem to be made by a conscious human being. But that assumption doesn't mean I think p-zombies are conscious. What I do know is that we don't understand consciousness yet, simple as that.

Did he have that in mind? I haven't read his papers well enough to make that specific conclusion. If you have a direct quote, feel free to enlighten me.

Because, again, how do I know I'm not responding to a very clever bot here either, but another human being?

I can make the argument that your responses seem to be made by a conscious human being. But that assumption doesn't mean I think p-zombies are conscious. What I do know is that we don't understand consciousness yet, simple as that. — ssu

If you think, as Turing supposedly did, that consciousness can be inferred from the behavior of a computer then it isn't much of stretch to conclude that Turing would've come to the conclusion that p-zombies are impossible.

If you think, as Turing supposedly did, that consciousness can be inferred from the behavior of a computer then it isn't much of stretch to conclude that Turing would've come to the conclusion that p-zombies are impossible. — TheMadFool

Turing wasn't concerned with philosophy. And without reading his papers I guess he spoke of intelligence, not consciousness.
If p-Zombies make you headache, may I ask, do you think other people are zombies or not and why? This surely would make for a life-style...

And without reading his papers I guess he spoke of intelligence, not consciousness — Heiko

I'm afraid reading his papers isn't something I've done; I wouldn't understand it anyway. Do you suppose Turing wasn't talking about consciousness when he formulated the now famous Turing test?

I find that hard to believe because the test specifically mentions that the AI has to convince a human that it (the AI) is human and being human involves consciousness - in fact consciousness is the defining feature of being human.

You mentioned "intelligence". Going with that, AI would have to mimic human intelligence. See below:

Human intelligence is the intellectual capability of humans, which is marked by complex cognitive feats and high levels of motivation and self-awareness — wikipedia

Self-awareness is the cornerstone of consciousness.

I find that hard to believe because the test specifically mentions that the AI has to convince a human that it (the AI) is human and being human involves consciousness - in fact consciousness is the defining feature of being human. — TheMadFool

I guess this is more about transitivity. Humans are assumed to be intelligent. Commonly this is assumed to be indicated by intelligent behaviour and communication. Therefor the behaviour of an intelligent machine must be indistinguishable from human behaviour in this respect.
It is not really about pretending to be a human.

I guess this is more about transitivity — Heiko

What do you mean?

Humans are assumed to be intelligent. — Heiko

Is this a false assumption?

It is not really about pretending to be a human — Heiko

The Turing test specifically states that all the AI has to do is give the impression that it's a human. Pretend?

What do you mean? — TheMadFool

If two subject are the same and one of them is the same as yet another, then all three are the same.

Is this a false assumption? — TheMadFool

It is anthropocentric.

The Turing test specifically states that all the AI has to do is give the impression that it's a human. — TheMadFool

If it can it's behaviour must be intelligent.

:up:

As I see it there are numerous fields where computers generate intelligent solutions for particular problems. But there is no implementation yet that could do that ad hoc for any field (and yes, you can fail intelligently).
I would guess that (due to science-fiction) today's society is much more open to the idea of an intelligent machine than maybe was the case at Turing's time. I guess this is reflected in the whole setting. Today there are software engineers running around trying to tweak natural language processing as they know where the flaws are. I would take it pretty seriously if they once say: "Okay, now we really cannot tell the difference anymore."