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).Look it up. — Sir2u
That's reasonable; since it would involve more things, it likely would involve more code.So an AI would need — Sir2u
Well, yeah, it has.Computer learning has come a long way — Sir2u
"Forget" is a strong word; that implies not remembering something said. Cite?But one thing that most people seem to forget about — Sir2u
"Forget" is a strong word; that implies not remembering something said. — InPitzotl
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
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. — Marchesk
What do you mean? — TheMadFool
But why is it "bordering on incoherent"? — 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.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. — ssu
Because you've restricted the domain of the discussion to humans.Firstly, why are you so coy about your definition of consciousness — TheMadFool
What type of behavior is indicative of being conscious? Any human behavior? What about sleeping?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
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.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
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.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
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
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
Because you've restricted the domain of the discussion to humans. — Harry Hindu
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
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?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 exist and can't be something that is mimicked? — Harry Hindu
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.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. — 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. — TheMadFool
And without reading his papers I guess he spoke of intelligence, not consciousness — Heiko
Human intelligence is the intellectual capability of humans, which is marked by complex cognitive feats and high levels of motivation and self-awareness — wikipedia
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.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 — Heiko
Humans are assumed to be intelligent. — Heiko
It is not really about pretending to be a human — Heiko
If two subject are the same and one of them is the same as yet another, then all three are the same.What do you mean? — TheMadFool
It is anthropocentric.Is this a false assumption? — TheMadFool
If it can it's behaviour must be intelligent.The Turing test specifically states that all the AI has to do is give the impression that it's a human. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.