Re: Qualia Question



Curt Welch wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Curt Welch wrote:
> >
> > > Right, we don't know if everything about human behavior can be
> > > explained mechanically.
> > >
> > > But there's plenty of reason to insist that everything MUST be
> > > explained mechanically in order to do the thing that many of us are
> > > here do - understand the possibilities of AI.
> > >
> > > And currently, there's no proof that everything that creates human
> > > behavior can't be explained mechanically.
> >
> > > Those of us that want to create AI, are therefore going to make the
> > > assumption that allows our goal to be reached. It's pointless to make
> > > any other assumption - it would just be negative thinking to discourage
> > > us from a goal which might be possible.
> > >
> > > So instead, we assume there is a mechanical answer to everything, and
> > > look at what that answer must be if it's there.
> > >
> > > To solve AI, we insist on finding the mechanical answer to all human
> > > behavior, and all human experience, because to not find it, is to fail
> > > to reach the goal.
> >
> > OK, but don't confuse working hypotheses with facts.
>
> Ok, but don't confuse facts with truth.
>
> Truth is a property of language and is absolute. Scientific facts are just
> predictions about future events and are never absolute. They always carry
> with them some possibility of being wrong. So the line between working
> hypotheses and facts can be a thin one at times.
>
> Most of what I say here is an obvious fact to me. It's as obvious to me as
> the fact that sun rises every day. I also know that what I say will become
> generally accepted facts in the society over time as well. Not because I'm
> saying them, but just because they are facts and in the end, more people
> will figure that out and believe it.
>
> So, right or wrong, I normally talk about this stuff as if it were a fact
> to everyone because it is a fact already to me.
>
> Now, if I were trying to publish a scientific paper on this subject, I
> would not write the same I write in a Usenet newsgroup. These "facts" of
> mine are not scientific facts yet because we don't have enough clear and
> simple evidence to allow everyone to see them as facts yet.
>
> > > Mechanical to me just means physical matter interacting with other
> > > physical matter.
> >
> > why don't you say 'physical' or 'material' then ?
>
> I do. How many times have I written "everything is physical" in these
> threads already?
>
> You brought up the idea of "mechanical" when you wrote:
>
> "There is no reason to insist that everything has to
> be explained mechanically."
>
> I only used the word in response to your comment.

I only said that because of Lester Zick!

> > But the devil's in
> > the
> > detail; the actual properties and causal powers involved.
>
> Right. But the point is that I believe the actual properties and causal
> powers of matter define us, instead of us defining it.

> Our ability to understand the causal powers of matter is limited by the
> nature of our brain. We are a computing machine built from this very
> matter with limited powers of computation and perception. So our ability
> to talk about, and understand, the properties of matter is limited by our
> nature - by how we work as machines.
>
> > > I've never been able to understand what Lester uses the word
> > > "mechanical" for even though I've seem him talk about hundreds of
> > > times.
> > >
> > > I believe all human behavior and our subjective experience is all a
> > > simple result of the mechanical properties of our body. We are just a
> > > mechanical device. If we build a device with the similar functions, it
> > > too will have human behavior, as well as its own subjective experience
> > > of things like aches and pains.
> >
> > So the functions matter but the physico-chemical properties that
> > underpin them don't ? Is that a fact ? Is it 'mechanism' -- as opposed
> > to ,errr, functionalism ?
>
> The words "physico-chemical" and "functionalism" mean almost nothing to me.
>
> I'm an engineer. I've never studied philosophy. Not even a single intro
> class, or a single book on the subject. Most my exposure to philosophy
> comes from people in this newsgroup bringing up issues of philosophy which
> causes me to go read a few web pages to try and understand what on earth
> they are talking about.
>
> And once again, I just read a few web pages on functionalism to try and
> understand what point you are trying to make in your question. So I'll try
> to explain my position and where I think it might fall in the domain of
> philosophy. But not knowing much about philosophy, what I write could be
> misleading....
>
> Yes, I think only the function matters. I believe the human body is just
> another machine, and as such, it has the same typical properties of all the
> machines we build. That is, for a machine, not everything about it's
> nature is important to us. If you build a second machine, which duplicates
> all the important functions, then you are free to change the implementation
> details in the second machine, and still end up with a machine which is
> functionally the same as the first.
>
> It will be a different machine, but the difference will not be important to
> the function we care about, so we call it "functionally identical".
>
> No two humans are the same. They have many obvious differences. Yet, we
> have no problem calling them all (well most at least :)) "intelligent". So
> it's clear, when we talk about human intelligence, we are talking about
> limited human functionality. We known for a fact that different hunks of
> matter which make up human bodies, are still functionally the same in terms
> of being intelligent.

There is no evidence that the implementation (the biochemistry) varies
much
more widely than the function (intelligence).

> For example, one human speaks English, and another French, so clearly,
> their brains are physically very different - as different as a PC is from a
> Mac for example.
>
> So there's just no doubt that when we talk about intelligent human
> behavior, we are comparing only a limited subset of the entire functional
> description of the body.
>
> To go deeper into this idea of functionalism, let me talk about a car.
> Lets say we have the ability to take it apart, all the way down to the
> atomic level, atom by atom. And as we do this, we build an atomic
> blue-print of the car - detailing the location and configuration of every
> atom in the car. We then use that to build a second copy of the car, with
> the exact same number of atoms, located in the exact same structure. Or at
> least we try.
>
> When we are done, we will still not have two identical cars. That's
> because the atomic structure of the first car is not fixed. It's
> constantly changing. The oxygen in the air is interacting with oil on the
> surface and causing it to change. Oil is slowly dripping down the side of
> the engine block. Dust is collecting on the car - it the dust part of the
> car or not? etc.
>
> So, it's generally impossible to ever build the same structure twice and
> get it exactly the same. You probably can't even build to H2O molecules
> and get them exactly the same because they are made up of dynamically
> moving parts that never stay still (the electrons). When you build two H2O
> molecules, all you end up with is functional equivalence. They both share
> a set of properties that are common to all water molecules even though they
> are all different.
>
> When we say two things are the "same" we are always talking about some type
> of functional equivalence because no two things are ever the same at least
> above the atomic level (and below the atomic level, we probably just have
> no way of knowing their differences).
>
> So, I believe that human intelligence, and human consciousness, is just a
> function which is duplicated already in billions of different humans
> bodies, all different in many ways. I believe that it's a type of function
> that we will be able to duplicate with very non-biological machines as
> well.

You are not comparign liek with like. Yes there are variations between
people,
but they are all variations on a theme. The kind of difference that
exists
between a silicon chip and cell is vastly freater than between people
with
O-type and A-type blood. It's a whole different ball-game.


> Now, on to your physico-chemical comment. I really don't know what you are
> thinking when you right that. Chemistry is mechanics at the atomic level.
> We don't normally build machines at the atomic level only because our hands
> are too big to grab and manipulate atoms. But we are developing tools to
> allow us to build a few things at near atomic levels. Chemistry is just
> mechanical construction using bulk tools. (i.e., a gar of H2O molecules is
> not very different than a box full of screws - it's just a container full
> of parts).



> All humans and all machines are built from these same building blocks, and
> the nature of what we can build is of course directly controlled by the
> nature of the building blocks we build with. So of course the nature of
> the building block is the foundation of all the functions a machine build
> from these things can have in our universe. In the end, the "function" is
> defined in terms of these same building blocks - so you can't separate the
> function from the building blocks.

OK. So you can't dulicate neurons in silcon. So AI is impossible ?


> For example, a "machine which spits out H2O molecules" is a functional
> description. But the function is defined in terms of the actions of these
> building blocks.
>
> If you take a device like a network router on the internet, it's easy to
> see how they are functionally equivalent. It makes no difference what
> brand, or design, router, might be located in the network between my
> computer and Google's computers, because I can access the web site either
> way. They are functionally the same.

Presumably you mean at a high level of description. You also seem
to be saying that physical differences are functional differences at a
low level
of description.

> When we describe the function of a router, we talk in odd abstract (and
> mental) terms like what protocols they support.
>
> But, if you look at what that really means in order for the router to
> actually work, it means the device must have a physical network connection
> - like an RJ45 style Ethernet jack, which will receive a physical stream of
> electrons flowing in on one connections, and send out a physical stream of
> electrons flowing out the other connection. The way those electrons come
> and go over time, is the functional description of what that router must do
> in order to have the "correct function". All the functional descriptions
> we specify for a router in fact add up to be one physical interconnect
> specification.
>
> So, the point to all this, is that the functional description of a network
> router is actually a description of a mechanical interface. It is just as
> mechanical as a water hose connection. So, a "functional description" is
> ALWAYS grounded in terms of atoms and then behavior.
>
> So you ask:
>
> > So the functions matter but the physico-chemical properties that
> > underpin them don't ? Is that a fact ?
>
> It's impossible to create a functional description which is not based on
> the physico-chemical properties of the universe.

Any kind of functional description ? So you can't say that a TTL NAND
gate
and a CMOS NAND gate are functionally equivalent ? Or an ultimately
fine-grained functional description ?

> When I say only the
> "function" is important, what I'm really saying is that only a subset of
> the total properties of some configuration of matter is important.
> Function is always defined in terms of, and is grounded to, the properties
> of matter in this universe. It's impossible for us to create a functional
> description which is not grounded in the physical universe.
>
> So when I say only the function of a human is important, I'm not saying
> anything we don't already know as a fact. We already know humans don't
> have to be identical clones just to be intelligent. So we now that only a
> subset of the behavior of the description of the matter we are made from is
> important to make us "act intelligent".
>
> The only thing in question here is whether our physical make-up alone is
> enough to explain human behavior, and human subjective experience. I
> believe it is, and I think it's an obvious "fact" that it is, but I don't
> have the simple evidence to make everyone else believe it yet.

But that -- the absence of ghosts or souls -- doesn't justify AI. You
need
to argue that some level of functioning can be duplciated in a
radically different material substrate.

> If we can
> create robots that act human-like in all ways, including talking about how
> things "feel" to them, including being confused about why it feels like it
> does to them, then I think it will become obvious that humans are just
> "machines" as well, and we will at that point know how to describe what
> type of machine we are as well.

That is approaching the problem from the wrong end. Why should we think
such
duplication is possible in the first place ? Insisting that people are
entirely physical doesn't demonstrate that. Physical things can have
unique,
unreproducible properties.

> --
> Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
> curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... but don't confuse facts with truth. ... >> physical matter. ... above the atomic level (and below the atomic level, ... Chemistry is mechanics at the atomic level. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker
    ... >I have a very simple question: Does your alternative theory of mechanics ... Einstein's SR plus the Dirac extensions to quantum mechanics seem ... >the velocity, that's probably a bloody good clue that light is a bit unusual, ... anything else) no matter what facts are staring them in the face. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker
    ... >I have a very simple question: Does your alternative theory of mechanics ... Einstein's SR plus the Dirac extensions to quantum mechanics seem ... >the velocity, that's probably a bloody good clue that light is a bit unusual, ... anything else) no matter what facts are staring them in the face. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker
    ... >I have a very simple question: Does your alternative theory of mechanics ... Einstein's SR plus the Dirac extensions to quantum mechanics seem ... >the velocity, that's probably a bloody good clue that light is a bit unusual, ... anything else) no matter what facts are staring them in the face. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: A matter of differences
    ... How to build, pretty much from scratch, a differential mechanics ... So we have "matter", ... This might be true if the transient character of differences between ... definitive reply to the mechanical issue of subjectivity/objectivity. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)