Replies

There is no way I could ever convince you, it is virtually impossible to express in words. But if you give it a try, perhaps you will experience it as well.

What a beautiful post, Alamo-Girl! Thank you!

It might seem strange to say it, but there is a knowledge that we can access only by means of the "inside out," not by the usual procedure of the "outside in." As you say, it is virtually impossible to convey this concept in words. One must experience it to know it. Meditation and prayer are the usual routes to such experiences.

For those who believe that consciousness is but a physical phenomenon, there is a tendency to also believe there is no afterlife and there is also a tendency to believe that consciousness can be achieved through artificial intelligence.

I recently read a passage by Marvin Minsky, a major driver of the "Strong AI" school of artificial intelligence theory. In it he basically says, the solution to the problem of AI involves only two things: (1) the right algorithm; and (b) "a brief description of the system." There has to be (b), because intelligence by nature is self-reflecting; thus the system would need to be able "to understand itself." Minsky thought that could be spelled out in a "brief description."

Here's the passage (which I think is a real howler):

"Consciousness is overrated. What we call consciousness now is a very imperfect summary in one part of the brain of what the rest is doing. The real problem is that people who ask 'Could a machine be conscious?' think that they are. They think they have a pipeline to what's happening in their minds. That's not true. People scarcely know how they get ideas at all...it makes putting consciousness into machines easy, because I don't think it'll take very much. For a machine to solve very hard problems, it's going to have to have a brief description of itself. When there is a better theory about how certain parts of the brain summarize what's happening in other parts, then we'll understand it and be able to make machines do it."

Well, I'd sure like to see that "brief description," if he ever succeeds in formulating it.

Thank you oh so very much for your reply and the kudos!

The example you gave of the strong AI proponent dismissing consciousness in such shallow terms illustrates the futility of trying to convey states which cannot be adequately described by words alone. That is, it is beyond his comprehension it therefore does not exist.

Strangely, this same reaction happens even within the sciences. It distresses me to invest so much time and energy in understanding a theory only to see the scientist drop the ball altogether in the end when it gets beyond his particular discipline. This happens even within disciplines, such as when the exploration of dark energy runs up against m-theory, or when molecular biology runs up against information theory. It leaves it up to those of us who are watching to switch gears and try to stitch the seams on our own. Sigh…

One of the few thing on which I share complete agreement with you is the short term prospects for AI. I differ ultimately because I think it is possible, but I haven't seen any projects that look promising, at least until tortoise comes out of his shell.

There are a lot of gears and wheels wizzing around in the brain, most of which are now accessible to study. But the computational model is still a mystery, dispite being able to see the pieces.

This is not an unusual condition in science, so I think it is premature to pronounce the project a failure.