> Even current AI can do that.
No it can't. A machine's output is not deterministic from its input and can be sensitive to conditions not anticipated at-programming-time. That isn't understanding.
A spinning top may spin on many surfaces not anticipated by the designer and acquire all sorts of interesting behaviors by doing so.
"The opposite of consciousness" is not a meaningful criterion of interest. I'm not even sure it's a meaningful term. It seems to commit the buddhist fallacy that causal processes at work in the universe are differentiated into opposites. That whatever causes rocks to fall must be the opposite of the thing that causes fire to rise. It isnt -- there isnt really anyway to define "opposite" with respect to what causes what.
Many of these tests you're outlining arent relevant to the question "does this robot have what we are interested in". Ie., is this piece of lead actually gold. Not "is it shiny with a brass coating" -- but can it participate in all the causal interactions gold can. I'm not concerned with how good the tool is, or how close we are to fooling people, i'm concerned with whether the robot can think.
Does the robot posses any concept? Any idea? Any understanding?
No, only metaphorically. It seems as-if it does to people who use it to aid in their understanding. It is only a trick, no more than an ancient human being being scared of a spinning top and wondering how it is so well able to navigate around the grain of the wood -- better than any beetle!
Intelligence as it is possessed by the relevant subset of animals which we're targeting possess concepts. They are biochemically connected to their environment. The understand it. The dog's finding its bone is NOT the same as the spinning top find its grove. Only by an extremely confused metaphor.
The dog puts to use thoughts, concepts, ideas, imagination (and many other things besides) that are about its environment. That it has acquired in its direct understanding of its environment. The spinning top merely topples towards its final point as-if it understood.
Machines are rivers of electrical current that topple toward and outcome that it sensitive to their current state, like a top spinning about a board. They have no active, navigating, biochemical motivated concernful goal-directed action.
My view is that they never will, since on all the best evidence, skillful concernful action is a neuro-bio-chemical process.
No it can't. A machine's output is not deterministic from its input and can be sensitive to conditions not anticipated at-programming-time. That isn't understanding.
A spinning top may spin on many surfaces not anticipated by the designer and acquire all sorts of interesting behaviors by doing so.
"The opposite of consciousness" is not a meaningful criterion of interest. I'm not even sure it's a meaningful term. It seems to commit the buddhist fallacy that causal processes at work in the universe are differentiated into opposites. That whatever causes rocks to fall must be the opposite of the thing that causes fire to rise. It isnt -- there isnt really anyway to define "opposite" with respect to what causes what.
Many of these tests you're outlining arent relevant to the question "does this robot have what we are interested in". Ie., is this piece of lead actually gold. Not "is it shiny with a brass coating" -- but can it participate in all the causal interactions gold can. I'm not concerned with how good the tool is, or how close we are to fooling people, i'm concerned with whether the robot can think.
Does the robot posses any concept? Any idea? Any understanding?
No, only metaphorically. It seems as-if it does to people who use it to aid in their understanding. It is only a trick, no more than an ancient human being being scared of a spinning top and wondering how it is so well able to navigate around the grain of the wood -- better than any beetle!
Intelligence as it is possessed by the relevant subset of animals which we're targeting possess concepts. They are biochemically connected to their environment. The understand it. The dog's finding its bone is NOT the same as the spinning top find its grove. Only by an extremely confused metaphor.
The dog puts to use thoughts, concepts, ideas, imagination (and many other things besides) that are about its environment. That it has acquired in its direct understanding of its environment. The spinning top merely topples towards its final point as-if it understood.
Machines are rivers of electrical current that topple toward and outcome that it sensitive to their current state, like a top spinning about a board. They have no active, navigating, biochemical motivated concernful goal-directed action.
My view is that they never will, since on all the best evidence, skillful concernful action is a neuro-bio-chemical process.