The Great Singularity Debate

Consciousness: Located within the micro-singularities inherent in all fundamental particles at the Planck scale.
Vitalism problem solved.
Materialism problem solved.
proto-Panpsychism FTW!!!

Truly a "Great debate" and most enjoyable.

Massimo professes to be purely materialist, yet does not accept that intelligence may be reduced to algorithms and evaluation of scenarios, and rejects the extrapolations of intelligence at an exponential rate? Eliezer puts one foot down in the pool of duality of consciousness and mind, and then swiftly pulls it out.

AGI solution... Creation or transmigration?

Yes I know this is not a new idea, and that I may have said all this before yet...

It seems to me that rather than attempting the immense and seemingly improbable task of creating an AGI or near AGI intelligence from the drawing board up, the goal should still be mind uploading? This must be an easier task than to attempt to simulate or rewrite what we already possess and have readily to hand - namely intelligence? (Something that Massimo disputes here as possible of artificial creation? - although I don't necessarily accept his point I can understand his scepticism).

And the more minds we can upload the better - why? Humans are emotional, irrational and judgmental. The only logical precaution to create or attempt to get near a rational AGI intelligence that will not become as deluded as an individual must be to incorporate multiple rational minds that contribute to a democractic yet informed consensus. Maybe these uploaded minds may also have direct interaction with pure software written algorithms that can aide to their rationalisation, who knows, yet this would seem to be beneficial.

Also the notion of whether an "artificially created" AGI would be conscious or even "Self-conscious" is irrelevant, (and depends wholly on your view and understanding of the term consciousness). If in fact this super intelligent machine achieves this or not makes little or no difference, although I would say that it would and that these things will take a more natural course?

Again with the use of mind uploading, these notions of "becoming self conscious" would seem to be irrelevant as we already possess this attribute, and is thus another reason why uploading would appear to be the method of choice to create AGI?

None of this excludes the possibility of carefully creating AI algorithms that may emerge and extrapolate towards AGI, yet I think this less likely of success as compared to mind uploading, and that to attempt to re-create any attributes that we already possess as humans to be merely "creating more work for ourselves"?


Re "extraordinary claims about consciousness".. We all have this tendency to associate "consciousness" with "Self-awareness", yet at the same time we may acknowledge that the "Self" is merely an apparition, and that it is perhaps and yet most likely an evolutionary consequence of our intelligence and intellect, and which may simply be manifest as a subset algorithm inside our brains, (such as that inferred from Ben Goertzel's themes). I can see no problem with this hypothesis whatsoever...however

What I see as the fundamental point of contention that is overlooked in almost every argument, including here between both Eliezer and Massimo, is that "consciousness" is perhaps a phenomena that is independant from "Self-awareness", and that consciousness exists regardless of forms or substrate. That "Self-awareness" is reliant upon consciousness, (the prime mover of interactions of form?)

For example... consider the thought experiment of a P-Zombie that is as real and similar to us in every other way except for this attribute of "Self-awareness" and all its associated baggage of apperceptions, ideas, imaginations, feelings, emotions and even qualia?

Is not this P-zombie still a "conscious being"? Is it not "conscious of its surroundings", and therefore can react and interact with its environment? Even though not "Self-aware" and thus unable to contemplate self and these experiences and reason "why" or "whom", this speculation none-the-less must point to the existence of consciousness as a distinct phenomena. At the sub-atomic level, how does one so-called particle know of the existence of it's neighbour with which it interacts? Is an ant a conscious thing? is it self-conscious? Does it need to be self-conscious?

Is it this "distinct phenomena" of consciousness that perhaps connects all things in the cosmos at the quantum and meta-physical level, (and that includes machines and other forms also)? It is the "macroscopic" view of "Self" that separates our intellects and reconciles "it-self" as a "separated" consciousness and a separated entity?

If you accept these propositions, then the notion of mind uploading identities "can" be reduced to subsets and algorithms, and that "Self" identity and consciousness are not defined by the continuity of a biological form?

I think Massimo's question all along comes down to "could the intelligence of the brain be dependent on some of the processes that naturally render it seemingly slower/less efficient than computers?", for example, do apparently slow and unnecessary brain processes actually play an essential part in its intelligence? Ok, that's a reasonable question (he's not actually affirming something, he's questioning).

The answer seems clear, though: even if this were the case, we could still augment the brain's capacity in many ways while preserving all the fundamental mechanisms. The fact of there existing a great natural variation in intelligence among individuals shows this. Another limitation which seems relatively easy to overcome is the small size of the brain.

I don't think that the parameters for intelligence or consciousness are really narrow though... it is a possibility, but I think that it is much more likely that the essence of intelligence and consciousness can branch off into many possible different substrates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi0vTqspW1E

Sense I saw this on YouTube I made a video to show my reactions to it.

For E.Y.

What happens if someone like Hitler gets uploaded? Will his new self have different value based goals?

why does Eliezar talk to these lightweights? consciousness as pattern is Dualism? a precisely Monist idea- that all things are the same stuff so it is the pattern of the stuff that matters- is dualism?

I would have bypassed this guy's magic brain substrate silliness altogether and focused on biotechnology based nano-engineered protein neural networks- basically "you know we can engineer and reprogram this 'special paper' you are so fond of too"

I got so tired of the photosynthesis/sugar thing as well- I just wanted to scream at this guy that if he uploaded himself into the photosynthesis simulation or downloaded the chemical output of the simulation into a matter replicator he could taste the virtual sugar and it would be just as sweet

Material universe?

Software is not material.
Frequency is not material.
Flow is not material.

Software + compiler + C.P.U. = Life?

Never going to happen this way.

Intelligence? Information ? These have no definitions.

If there is no definition, then there is nothing to implement.

I thought Pigliucci gained the upper hand in this lively debate. I think that Eliezer Yudkowsky should allow a distinction between the brain's wetware and the integrated mind that results. Even though Pigliucci disclaims being a dualist in any way, I got the impression that he held consciousness to be in its own realm.