TrueAndroids
User
Senior Boarder
| Posts: 10 |   |
Karma: 1
|
This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/03/29 23:03
Hello Raul, great forum on my favorite topic. I'm wondering if I can get your professional opinion on my machine consciousness theory, which I have prototyped and demo on youtube (see below).
I don't claim that this is the only way or the complete way to create machine consciousness, but only a way.
TrueAndroids MC Theory.
Any machine that is exhibiting human thinking, such as deductive reasoning, and doing so semantically, so that it is actually understanding what it's thinking about just like humans, is a conscious machine, at least on that level.
Application.
This machine, I demo in my video, is doing precisely that.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion.
This machine is conscious !!
So according to the theory what I needed to do was (1) first discover the eight semantic components of computing, and (2) then build a reasoning function that can handle any combination of facts and rules. And this is what I did, and implemented in the Conscious Machine Prototype.
You can see the video demo at my youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/TrueAndroids
And an article on it I wrote as open source can be found at
robots.net
Any and all comments appreciated. Thanks.
Post edited by: Raúl, at: 2010/03/30 01:40
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
Raúl
Moderator
Moderator
| Posts: 591 | |
Karma: 10
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/04/05 11:28
Hello,
Thanks for your interest. I read your article and saw the first video. I don't have a clear idea yet about how exactly your prototype is built, but I think I can offer some comments, and make some questions that might help me to better understand you project.
Well, the first (and big) question would be:
- Is your prototype able to pass the Turing Test?
Saying your machine is conscious is a really big claim. So you would need quite a strong evidence in order to support that claim.
In addition to the Turing Test, it would be interesting (at least for me ) to see how your prototype would be rated using ConsScale. Please, have a look to www.ConsScale.com, and use the available calculator.
Coming back to your claim: saying that a machine is conscious could mean many things. Unfortunately, the term consciousness is not as well defined as many people think. It looks to me that in your work you have defined consciousness as the ability to perform "semantic deductive reasoning". And here comes my second big question:
- Do you think your prototype generates or sustains any phenomenal states at all?
I think most researchers would agree on the idea that having a program executing deductive logic rules won't take you any closer to the problem of phenomenal consciousness. Therefore, I think you might be trying to overcome this issue by adding the notion of meaning (semantics). So, if you're claiming that your machine is phenomenally conscious, how are the mechanisms for semantics giving place to phenomenal states in your machine?
I could come up with many more related questions (while I am trying to understand how your prototype is designed), but I will add just one more now:
- Is your prototype able to develop a sense of self?
Selfconsciousness is one of the biggest features of human consciousness. Does your theory account for the development of such a sense?
I think the key question, that still prevents me to fully understand your project is the notion of meaning that you are using. Could you please clarify that? For instance, taking a evulotionalty standpoint, I can think of meaning without thinking of emotions. Does you theory account for emotions as well?
Thanks,
Raúl.
Post edited by: Raúl, at: 2010/04/05 11:30
Raúl Arrabales Moreno. conscious-robots.com/raul |
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
TrueAndroids
User
Senior Boarder
| Posts: 10 | |
Karma: 1
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/04/08 05:44
Thanks for your great feedback Raul! You given me a lot to think about and work on, which could take some time. 
Some preliminary thoughts on your questions:
Well, the first (and big) question would be:
- Is your prototype able to pass the Turing Test?
No, not even close. It has just the bare beginnings of a true (semantic), reason oriented understanding of its world. But to have this real understanding (not a simulation or syntactic trick) is to have at least a glimmer of human-like consciousness.
Saying your machine is conscious is a really big claim. So you would need quite a strong evidence in order to support that claim.
The evidence is wholly the application of the theory stated above. The evidence that the machine is doing what the theory calls for - semantic deductive thinking - is clear in the demo. No more evidence is needed given the theory: If the theory is true then the conclusion is true because the evidence of the machine doing what the theory calls for is clearly true.
In addition to the Turing Test, it would be interesting (at least for me ) to see how your prototype would be rated using ConsScale. Please, have a look to www.ConsScale.com, and use the available calculator.
But is the Turing Test really proof that a machine is conscious? In other words is it a necessity that if a machine fails to pass the Turing Test is can't be conscious? I think not in that it could merely be a very clever syntactic simulation (as Searle in his Chinese Room shows) yet have zero understanding of the syntactic squiggle inputs and outputs - zero consciousness.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
TrueAndroids
User
Senior Boarder
| Posts: 10 | |
Karma: 1
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/04/09 22:14
- Do you think your prototype generates or sustains any phenomenal states at all?
I think most researchers would agree on the idea that having a program executing deductive logic rules won't take you any closer to the problem of phenomenal consciousness. Therefore, I think you might be trying to overcome this issue by adding the notion of meaning (semantics). So, if you're claiming that your machine is phenomenally conscious, how are the mechanisms for semantics giving place to phenomenal states in your machine?
No, I'm just saying that it's consciously thinking just as humans, via semantic, deductive reasoning. This phenomenon is generally accepted as access consciousness, which for some is not the "hard problem" of phenomenal consciousness. This might be called the easy problem, but I've not yet seen anyone demonstrate true access consciousness (not just a syntactic simulation) which requires fusing semantic components with human reasoning as I have done. So I believe I'm the first to create a conscious machine, even if it is "just" the easy problem of access consciousness.
Phenomenal consciousness involves not thoughts in memories and action, it is "simply experience; it is moving, colored forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the center." (Wikipedia) So it centers around robotic sensations and their impact on the 'center' or machine self of the artificial life form. So it is outside the function of a consciously thinking machine, such as is my demo.
Common Reference Point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
TrueAndroids
User
Senior Boarder
| Posts: 10 | |
Karma: 1
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/04/11 06:34
Continuing ...
"In addition to the Turing Test, it would be interesting (at least for me ) to see how your prototype would be rated using ConsScale. Please, have a look to www.ConsScale.com, and use the available calculator."
Your ConsScale is very comprehensive, and a real advance in AI!
Using ConsScale for me was like going down memory lane to my "android system" provisional patent I filed in 2006, of which the deductive reasoning prototype is one component. Most of your identified cognitive skills are implemented in my Alldroid Android System pseudo code.
I have differing names but the cognitive skill is the same. I have pseudo-code for a machine self, machine perceptual (phenomenal), conceptual (access), and emotional consciousness, machine prime purpose (ala William James), machine creativity (planning and acting for effects), machine self-consciousness, and machine self autonomy (from morning when it wakes to evening when it sleeps recharge/maintenance). And its sensory motor functions are designed based on MSRS architecture. So if anybody will 'get it', it would be you.
I've since decided to go the open source route with this pseudo code invention for a complete autonomous android. I've implemented the semantic, deductive reasoning part, that gives the android access consciousness. Thus I believe the rest of the pseudo code for the Alldroid android system will be readily implemented.
Obviously I'm not an expert or even proficient yet in your ConsScale, but as an inventor I must say I have been down those exact roads, trying to build all those same functions, so it rings very true for me. Well done Raul!
Common Reference Points:
http://www.consscale.com/levels.html
http://www.consscale.com/level_tables.html#table2
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
TrueAndroids
User
Senior Boarder
| Posts: 10 | |
Karma: 1
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/04/17 19:13
continuing ...
"- Is your prototype able to develop a sense of self?
Selfconsciousness is one of the biggest features of human consciousness. Does your theory account for the development of such a sense?"
Yes, self-consciousness is a matter of adding a database to the code you see running. Then I simply need to give it a dictionary that includes the concept "me" which can also be "I" when coming from the android itself, and could be "you" or "alldroid" when it comes from its environment. And then its just a matter of loading its concept of self ("me"/"I") with various predicates such as: I am Alldroid. I am an android. I am an artificial human life form. I am a CPU. I am a machine. I was born on x. etc etc
Self-consciousness is a variety of consciousness: One can be conscious of oneself or of other things. In both cases the conscious functioning (semantic, conceptual reasoning) must come first, before it can be directed to discourse on one subject (say itself) or on any other subject. However, once this conscious function is built as shown in my demo, it is fairly easy to then add the memory capability (database), and have it start learning, and thinking about the subject of self or "I" and remember what it knows about itself = "me" = "I" = "Alldroid"
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
TrueAndroids
User
Senior Boarder
| Posts: 10 | |
Karma: 1
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/04/20 21:27
continuing with final questions ...
"I think the key question, that still prevents me to fully understand your project is the notion of meaning that you are using. Could you please clarify that? For instance, taking a evulotionalty standpoint, I can think of meaning without thinking of emotions. Does you theory account for emotions as well?"
"Meaning' is a broad term that can encompass any aspect of the potential for cognitive or emotive impact of speech on interlocutors. However in linguistic semantics these days the cognitive aspects are the center of focus. ... Our attention will be directed toward what is called 'formal semantics', which is the adaptation to natural language of analytical techniques from logic." https://www.msu.edu/~abbottb/formal.htm
This is my view on meaning. I'm isolating just the cognitive meaning, not the emotive meaning of speech / discourse. That is another problem - the problem of affective (emotional) consciousness, which I have other pseudo code for, but that will have to wait for another day.
"The semantics of logic refers to the approaches that logicians have introduced to understand and determine that part of meaning in which they are interested; the logician traditionally is not interested in the sentence as uttered but in the proposition, an idealised sentence suitable for logical manipulation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_semantics
Here, the specific proposition I begin with is the categorical proposition, including singular propositions. Since any elementary sentence using any verb can be converted into a categorical sentence this is a useful place to start. And from the truth-values of a preliminary set of these, the truth-values of a host of other propositions can be unequivocally, deductively assigned. So it is a good place to start a search for machine consciousness. And as shown above the task is to identify the "parts of meaning" or semantic parts, that allow the machine and humans to understand them, and then to reason with this understanding (meaning). These semantic parts then become the "semantic components of computing" as required for semantic programming, and coupling them with reasoning functions (and memories?) makes for machine consciousness.
The clearest description of the difference between a syntactics based machine and a semantics based machine is shown by Searle's Chinese Room. The syntactic machine may cleverly process syntactic squiggles, and output syntactic symbols that fool the human operator, but it clearly has zero understanding of what the syntactic squiggles mean; it has therefore zero cognitive consciousness.
So, my main claim and proof is-
TrueAndroids MC Theory
Theorem: If a machine can understand the semantic meaning of its input, and so reason with the input to produce new meaningful, semantic output, in other words, perform the function of semantic human reasoning (deductive), then the machine is cognitively conscious, just as are equivalent humans.
Proof of Theorem
Human cognitive consciousness is composed of:
I. semantic understanding of cognitive constructs, as found in the parts of meaning (semantic components).
II. elementary reasoning via this semantic understanding to new, meaningful constructs.
Application.
This machine, I demo in my video, is doing precisely that, semantic human reasoning:
I. using these semantic components:
TrueAndroids Semantic Components of Computing
1. Probability factor (mostly true/mostly false/most likely/blank)
2. Quantifier (Any, No, Some, This/That/There is/blank)
3. Domain (universe of discourse or specified common genus term)
4. Subject charge (that is/are , that is/are not)
5. Subject (variable:value)
6. copula ( is / are i.e. Peano's E - is a member of)
7. Domain (universe of discourse or specified common genus term)
8. Predicate charge (that is/are , that is/are not)
9. Predicate (variable:value)
10. Truth value (truth/falsity/blank)
II. to perform human reasoning, deductive/probabilistic reasoning, with any subject's facts and rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion.
This machine is conscious !!
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
Raúl
Moderator
Moderator
| Posts: 591 | |
Karma: 10
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/04/23 20:03
Hello TrueAndroids, thanks for your comprehensive answers. I'll take my time to review them thoughtfully and I will come up with comments soon.
Best,
Raúl.
Raúl Arrabales Moreno. conscious-robots.com/raul |
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
TrueAndroids
User
Senior Boarder
| Posts: 10 | |
Karma: 1
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/04/24 23:48
That would be great Raul. It seems I have run right into the "No Phenomenology No Consciousness" proposition of Igor Aleksander, with my assertion of "Consciousness because of Semantic Human Thinking."
My basic evidence is a series of questions I asked myself: If I lost my leg could I still be conscious? Yes. If I lost legs and arms? Yes. If I lost eyes? Yes. If I lost seeing, hearing, smell, taste, and touch? Yes. I could still be in my brain semantically thinking about things, i.e. I could still be conscious.
From this evidence, I concluded that:
If mechanical semantic human thinking (elementary deductive reasoning we all do, and can be seen in brain scans) is created, then machine consciousness has been created, in other words, the machine would be conscious just as myself, in the situation described above. I then built the prototype implementing (1) semantic (2) human thinking, and so I conclude from the principle that I've built a conscious machine.
I suppose this is the central, essential point, and where I differ with some other researchers/inventors.
Common Reference Points:
http://www.conscious-robots.com/en/publications/papers/apa-newsletter-phenomenal-machine-
consciou.html --
Essential Phenomenology for Conscious Machines: A Note on Franklin, Baars and Ramamurthy: "A Phenomenally Conscious Robot"
Igor Aleksander
Slippery Steps Towards Phenomenally Conscious Robots
Pentti O.A. Haikonen
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
Raúl
Moderator
Moderator
| Posts: 591 | |
Karma: 10
|
Re:This Machine is Conscious !! - 2010/05/05 17:13
Thanks for your replies to my former questions. I am glad you found my comments useful. Having read your responses, here I go with my two cents:
In your video you seem to make a distinction between “true thinking” and other sorts of information processing which we could find difficult to call “thinking”.
At this point, I think it is important to remark the difference between implicit (or unconscious) processing and explicit (or conscious) processing. When you say “true thinking” I guess you refer to the latter. However, it is not that easy to claim that deductive reasoning with associated semantics is the same as conscious processing. Let me ask you one question in this regard: don’t you think human brain perform deductive reasoning with grounded meanings unconsciously? If so, what is, from your point of view, the fundamental difference between conscious and unconscious thinking?
Well, to be honest, I must admit that I think performing reasoning with grounded meaning is a requirement for conscious thinking. In fact, if I am correct, having grounded meanings will eliminate the Chinese Room objection. Maybe, as you say, this is a good start in the challenge of designing a conscious machine. Then, other aspects will have to be considered: ability to report mental content, self-awareness, etc., etc.
Another issue related with grounded meaning is that some authors would claim that you really need a physically situated agent, e.g. a real robot, in order to generate true real-world grounded meanings.
I agree with you that the Turing Test is not the ultimate test for consciousness. That’s one of the reasons why I proposed ConsScale. Anyhow, passing the Turing Test would be a hallmark of consciousness (as there are other less demanding criteria for lower levels of consciousness).
I agree that your prototype is centered around the concept of access consciousness, so I won’t ask again for phenomenal states 
Your Alldroid model looks to me like a cognitive architecture. So, looks like the obvious next step is to implement it and confront it to a real problem domain to see how it works.
About the “No Phenomenology No Consciousness” proposition, I’d rather say that you hit the problem of “no sensorimotor interaction no cognition, and therefore no consciousness”. I understand your claim that no sensorimotor interaction is needed for pure or core consciousness. However, from a developmental standpoint, I’d argue that sensorimotor capabilities are needed in the first place in order to develop meaning. How could an agent have an internal mental state with meaning if it didn’t acquire it from experience?
Raúl Arrabales Moreno. conscious-robots.com/raul |
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. Please, register to participate in the
forum. |
|
miel
continental
Forums... 
Conscious Robots RSS Feed
Follow us
