Re: Qualia Question



Curt Welch wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Curt Welch wrote:
>
> > > 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!
>
> That's what I get for commenting without trying to follow the real context!
> :)
>
> Like I said, I have never been able to understand Lester's definition of
> mechanical.
>
> > > 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).
>
> True. But we only have one example of intelligence to study, so it's no
> surprise that the one example we have to study (humans), have a lot in
> common with each other. And since the device is so large and complex, and
> our tools so primitive, it's no surprise we are still working on the
> reverse engineering problem. Nothing found in the brain

What about the mind ?

>so far indicates
> that anything odd is happening in there - it's just a big signal processing
> device which is still too complex for us to figure out. But progress is
> being made daily, and by all predictions, we will figure it out before too
> long (a few hundred years at max). There's no indication so far that there
> is anything there beyond our ability to figure out.

So how are we going to figure out qualia ? Or does that conveniently
fail to
feature in what we have to figure out ?

> And since we don't understand the function of the only example we have, it
> should be no surprise that we have not built a duplicate yet.
>
> What do you think would happen if you took a standard PC back in time 100
> years and asked the leading scientist and engineers of the day to try and
> reverse engineer the device? They would have no clue what they were
> looking at. The don't even know what a transistor is, and they don't have
> any electronic tools that work at the frequencies our computers run at
> today. The vacuum tube was only invented in 1904. All they could figure
> out was that the device as producing a ton of RF noise. It would take them
> 50 years to figure out what the thing was doing. And that's a simple PC
> designed by humans. They would have to first master all the technology it
> was built from, and then create tools just to study it.
>
> The fact that we have been looking at the brain in all this time is the
> same type of problem. Here we have a technology we have not yet mastered
> and we are slowly developing the knowledge needed to understand what we are
> looking at.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes. Of course. But I've studied, designed, and built a ton of different
> machines in my life. In all that study, and work, I found that the
> implementation can easily change and still provide the same function.

Perhaps that is a defining feature of mechanism. Perhaps it isn't a
defining feature of organism. The question is not whether one machine
can duplicate another, but whether either can duplicate a mind.

> One common function in simple machines is just size and shape. If you want
> to duplicate the function of a screw, you have to get the size and shape
> correct - there's just not much room for change.
>
> But on the other end of the scale of machines, we find electronics, and
> computers. Their functional requirements has to do with producing the
> correct type of signal - i.e., the correct flow of electrons in and out of
> an electron pipe (write). In these types of machines, the same function
> can be duplicated with machines that have almost nothing in common in terms
> of size and shape.
>
> You can build a radio out of vacuum tubes, or transistors, and they both
> work just fine even though the physical and logical operation of tubes is
> completely different than transistors. You can use simple resistors and
> capacitors to create a tone control which acts as a filter to shape the
> sound. Or, you can build the radio all in the digital domain, so it
> receives the radio signal in a digital format and does the tone control by
> running mathematical signal processing algorithms on the numbers, instead
> of doing the work in the analog domain.
>
> What we know about building signal processing devices is that the hardware
> implementation is irrelevant as long as it produces the correct signal, and
> transforms the signals correctly in the end.
>
> There's a lot we don't know about the brain, but the one thing we know
> every well is that all our conscious intelligent behavior is created by the
> brain which is acting as a signal processing device.

Since we don't know how the brain works in detail, we don't *know*
that.
we just assume it. OTOH, the failure of the assumption to deal with
consciousness could be a reason for dropping it.

> And what we know
> about signal processing devices is that it makes no difference what the
> hardware is made from (tubes, transistors, or neurons) - if you process the
> signal correctly, you get the same function.
>
> You can encode sound signal in a wire for a phone call, or in a scratch on
> a wax cylinder which is read with physical contact, or in the pits of CD
> red by a laser. In the end, it still sounds like a person talking when the
> signal is used to specify how the air gets moved.
>
> With all the work we have done, we have built a huge body of machines which
> attempt to duplicate intelligent behavior, and all of those devices, that
> come at all close to duplicating different parts of intelligent human
> behavior, have to date, been signal processing devices - and none of them
> used neurons yet that didn't stop them from producing the correct signals.
>
> All this adds up to a huge body of evidence telling us that the solution to
> AI is simply a matter of building a single processing device with the right
> function and we know for a fact that signal processing devices don't need
> to be made out of neurons to work.

Assuming you get the intelligence -- will that give yu the
consciousness?

> > > 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 ?
>
> You seem to have missed my point. The building blocks everything is built
> from is atoms, not neurons. Transistors and neurons and vacuum tubes are
> all built from the same building blocks - atoms. We will be able to
> duplicate the function of the brain using transistors. I'm quite sure of
> that.

That doesn't follow at all. The fact that everything is made of atoms
does not mean you can duplicate one bunch of atoms with a different
bunch.
Nothing has the exact properties of iron except iron.

> > > 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.
>
> Yes exactly.
>
> When you say "high level" all you are really saying is, "when I leave out a
> lot of the details". The details you include however are all defined
> ultimately in physical terms because the meaning of all those terms were
> build on words, which were build on words, which started with words which
> described physical stuff. All our meaning is ultimately grounded back to
> physical reality.
>
> > > 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 ?
>
> Yes. I think. Did my double negative confuse you?
>
> I was trying to say that all functional descriptions are based on the
> physico-chemical properties of the universe - including the functional
> description we call a NAND gate.

I would have held that up as a counterexample. It is defined in
terms of abstract 1's and 0's.

> > So you can't say that a TTL NAND
> > gate and a CMOS NAND gate are functionally equivalent ?
>
> Of course you can. But the meaning of NAND gate is defined in terms of
> atoms. There is no other way to define it in this universe. The concept
> of a "signal" only has meaning in terms of the interaction of physical
> matter.

But you can't plug a TTL chip into a CMOS socket -- they run off
different
voltages. They are funcitonally equivalent in a sense that specifically
ignores the physical details.

> When you talk about a high level functional description like NAND gate, you
> leave out the lower level functional description that ties it to physical
> reality. We can specify the functional description of the NAND gate with a
> simple truth table which seems to have no connection to physical reality.
> A CMOS NAND get might for example be a 3.3V device and the TTL a 5 V
> device, so that they are not in fact directly compatible. But this
> encoding of logic values was left out of the truth table description of
> what an NAND gate is.
>
> However, it's impossible to build a real NAND gate without filling in the
> missing functional pieces. You must fill in the missing functional parts
> which were missing which tie the functional description to physical
> reality.

Yes, but hat is to do with physicla implementation, not functional
equivalence.

> Inversely, the only reason we were able to define the function of a NAND
> gate in the first place was because we were describing the behavior of
> physical matter. So, the description of a NAND gate is based on logic
> values, and values can only exist in physical matter - so therefore the
> functional description of NAND, is tied to, and depended on, the properties
> of physical matter in our universe.

No, the functional equivalence has to ignore it. Otherwise they turn
out not to be equivalent at all.

> > Or an ultimately
> > fine-grained functional description ?
>
> Don't know what point you are getting there.
>
> > > 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.
>
> I did that above for you with the discussion about our experience with
> signal processing devices.
>
> Did I mention I can build a signal processing device out of water or light,
> or chemicals as well?
>
> > > 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 ?
>
> Because I'm an engineer that wants to be the person who built the first
> human level AI. Why I want to do it has everything to do with how I should
> approach the problem.
>
> The point is, we don't know if it's possible, but there is also no evidence
> showing it's impossible. We just don't have enough data to answer the
> question either way. Those of us that want it to be possible approach it
> from my direction - we assume it's possible and will continue to do so as
> long as we can explain away any data that suggests it is not possible. And
> so far, that's been easy to do.

> People that don't want it to be possible, or for whatever reason, have
> simply chosen to believe it's not possible, will not change their mind
> until someone can offer proof that it is possible. No one has that proof
> yet. It will only come in the form of machines which act intelligent and
> human in all ways. Until people on my side of the fence can do that, we
> have no hope of winning an argument that AI is possible. Because the
> ultimate defense from the other side is always - if it's possible, why
> can't you build one?
>
> When we get human-level machines running, then we will be faced with a new
> level of debate - are they really conscious? Are they sentient? I think
> that debate will be much like the evolution debate. Many people will just
> not accept that the machines are conscious like humans are conscious. In
> the end however, we will both know how to build these machines, and we will
> have a complete understanding of how the brain works to show that it is
> performing the same function as the machines.

Will the machines arive before the understanding of the brain arrives ?
How often is an engineering problem solved before a science problem ?

> So there will be no doubt
> about what we are. Like evolution, which still, after 100 years, is not
> fully believed by more than half of the people in the world, it will
> probably take a long time for society to accept what has been found and to
> change the culture to embrace the idea.
>
> > Insisting that people are
> > entirely physical doesn't demonstrate that.
>
> Right, it doesn't. I can't demonstrate it. I can only demonstrate that
> there are answers to all the questions that are consistent with the point
> of view that AI is possible. If you take my stance on explaining what we
> are, it gives us answers to all the questions. The huge missing pieces of
> the puzzle however is that we don't have a conscious intelligent machine
> yet. Until we get that job done, everything else is just idle chat to a
> non believer.
>
> To a believer however - someone like me that wants to solve this problem,
> it's not just idle chat - it's important data about the path we must take
> to solve AI. If it's possible, everything must be physical.
>
> > Physical things can have unique, unreproducible properties.
>
> Like what?

AFAIK every substance has a different boiling point.

> And what evidence do you have to support the idea that if we
> cloned the device at the atomic level, that the clone would not have all
> the same properties.

None, but the issue is whether you can reproduce consciousness in
silicon.

> Give me an example of a signal processing device that is unique and
> unreproducible.
>
> --
> Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
> curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is denying the facts of 911/2001 as bad asdenyingtheHolocaust?
    ... Logical constructs only matter ... I'm merely reporting their evidence. ... certain difficulties as to the necessary scale of the conspiracy. ... Several of the Arab ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: mechanism for planetary growth
    ... This claim is incorrect and not supported by the evidence simply ... there is no evidence that HH-30 is creating matter. ... object from its previous created accretion disk. ... If I point out that a closed e loop ought to display the features ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: This is why no one questions the isotope test...
    ... I think you have overstated the matter to an extent -- the article is ... difficult the standards of proof necessary to rebut those presumptions. ... the test shows evidence of doping, ... Unfortunately, this lack of attention from Floyd and his lawyers, while ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)