rigelrover wrote:
[side discussion] Of course, as with all manufactured things, it can be said that they are none-the-less natural because they are derived from the pre-scribed natural ability of humans to bring them forth. So another thing to consider (maybe for ethical reasons, etc.) is that any artificial intelligence brought forth by human beings is none-the-less a naturally intelligent being, if different in many or some of its particular modes of existing, and should be thought of as such per philosophical considerations.

Of course this discussion could be a part of the discussion about our kind of consciousness being derived, itself, from innate universal (or perhaps local) intelligence, but I will leave it up to other to decide if they would like to discuss that here.

rigelrover wrote:


You chased me from the "Is Everything 'Natural'" discussion to censor my lack of precise language... I thought that we agreed that there is a sense of the word natural that goes along with the contrivance that everything belongs to 'nature', and there is a separate sense (whose opposite is sometimes 'artificial') that describes local or closed systems. Artificial meaning 'Man-made' fits the second sense, but does not contradict the first one because of its limited scope. This might be like Newton's laws describing sub-luminal speed motion, and Relativity modifying Newton more and more as speeds approach the speed of light. Things can appear artificial until you zoom out (metaphorically) farther and farther, allowing more and more as part of your conceptual system. When you get all, or most, of the way out (considering that there might be universes with meta-laws that govern our own) the concept 'artificial' has no meaning, because man-made is ultimately 'universe-made'. The only thing that I might contradict this is if we were to posit a free-will allowance to change the ultimate nature of things globally. For instance, if there were a "god-actor" that had the ability to step into nature and make for un-natural things to happen (ie, miracles). As it appears to be the case now, the 'miracles' that we observe, with no degredation to their majesty and beauty, ie. life itself, are none-the-less due to natural processes that abide the previous state of the universe time-wise backward ad infinitum; that abide causation.

rigelrover wrote:
What was the original post about again? Oh yes...AI. I am still interested, maybe you can provide a good starting point. How would you prove (to me for instance) that you are not an AI computer; that I am discussing with a legitimate human being? I thought that, for this post, it would be important to talk about the Turing test in regard to differentiating AI and NI in this way.

Kelby wrote:



This assumes that the only consciousness worth investigating is human consciousness. There can perhaps be other kinds of intelliegence, structured in diverse ways. A sort of consciousness can arise from AI, and if we use human problem-solving as a staunch foundational stone, then we may miss something essential. Robots may come to acquire their own modes of problem-solving, quite different from human problem-solving. Would it not make sense to consider a robot entirely sufficiently intelligent if it could avoid combinatorial explosion?

I believe to say that if a robot does not replicate "human-ness" then it is not conscious is to miss the problem entirely.

If there are to be limitations in AI, I do not feel it will be due to any limitations in principle. Rather, it will be pragmatic limitations. In other words, robots will not be conscious because of any mysterious chasm or any foundational problem...instead, robots won't be conscious due to economic strain, cost, and efficiency. Besides, think of the utter uselessness of such an endeavor. We can have robots do so much more, and be so much more resourceful, without them being conscious.