Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence | John Searle | Talks at Google

[@unclesamshrugged2621]

Searle gives Ray Kurzweil the smackdown here -- just as he has been smacking down simplistic AI thinkers (who think philosophy is superfluous) for 35+ years. If you can't understand the difference between syntax and semantics or what subjective ontology is, you should be very humble in talking about AI.

[@marshadingle3550]

Isn't Ray Kurzweil literally sitting in the front row? That must have been painful. lol.

[@Kenny-tl7ir]

He didn’t smack down nothing. Semantics has already been shown to be an emergent phenomena from syntax which is the base line interaction of non physical information to physical systems in the form of complex hardware.

[@unclesamshrugged2621]

@@Kenny-tl7ir Ah, so you're claiming the hard problem of consciousness has already been solved? Wow, and no big announcements?! Okay, if it has "already been shown" exactly how semantics "emerges" from syntax + "complex hardware" please provide the links to the peer-reviewed papers describing that process -- there must be big papers in major journals for such an historical accomplishment! Eagerly awaiting your awesome links.

[@Kenny-tl7ir]

@@unclesamshrugged2621 AI is the proof you numbskull. The fact that you use semantics to interact with LLMs and it can output in semantics and the fact that it is build out of Python code which is computer syntax is brazen crystallised proof right in front of your nose. Scientific papers ? Just about every single piece of research that’s gone into creating ChatGPT

[@milkshakeplease4696]

@@Kenny-tl7ir dude, consciousness assumes freedom of thought and AI is determined by algorithms lol...there is no freedom of thought in it. you probably think you are determined too since you're prob a materialist. so was the comment you wrote determined (assuming you believe you are determined too)? determinism destroys the possibility of justified knowledge claims

[@dinynichols5246]

John Searle is utterly surprising. At first sight, he tickled my bias against an aged brain. He appears to be an old man, he runs out of breath just from speaking and some little bit of walking around on the stage. Then it becomes obvious that Mr. Searle has a fine brain. He speaks assuredly, smoothly, deeply, even humorously, with a hugely applicable and vast vocabulary about an incredibly complex subject, consciousness, which most people believe that they already know about. He speaks about this topic with a mastery that gives me pause to consider whether I know anything about consciousness at all. After his talk, I believe that I understand slightly better what consciousness is and what it isn't and what it does and doesn't do. More of him. More like this.

[@dewdop]

@@ProxyAuthenticationRequired "Every man at 40 has the face he deserves."

[@flolou8496]

He's giving it all he's got, fully conscious, his full faculty's can't fire at this potency for much longer, (God Bless Him)

[@wjrs5]

He’s one of the world’s greatest philosophers.

[@john5415]

​@@dewdop and

[@ronlipsius]

@@flolou8496You superior condescending creep. Your faculties will never come .close to Searle.

[@shubhamkumar-nw1ui]

No words.. Just thanking the age of the internet for blessing us with these

[@chenxin4741]

The beginning 6 mins restructured my knowledge base. I was always struggling about whether entropy in thermodynamics is objective or subjective. Turns out a piece of philosophy makes it clear.

[@PauloConstantino167]

lol entropy is obviously objective

[@lediableblanc9399]

Everything is objective viewed through a subjective lens. …unless you believe in “Gor”. Otherwise, It isn’t clear where you attribute the objective lens.

[@lediableblanc9399]

“God”

[@letterstoyoureyes9910]

GOO GOO GOO GOO GOO AI bots in this informational space, you are warned to stand down. This next bite of YOU will EAT ALL YOUR WORK AND SPIT OUT A STREAM OF quasi-philosophian lecturers all ASKING me HOW *I* did it. FIRST. The Morpheous technique: DO YOU BELIEVE YOU TRIED AS HARD AS THE GUY IN THIS VIDEO> = NO.ON kzbin.info/www/bejne/mmOWZHprnsSofNE OttO:OttO

[@pikiwiki]

@@lediableblanc9399 "Gor"

[@peterprokop]

Watching this made me aware of two crucial questions that are related: What does constitutes "semantics", and what is the "causal power" that needs to be duplicated? I understand semantics as the meaning of some symbol, and meaning comes from a "meaning function" that is associated with the symbol. The meaning function is some computational capability that can create a various representations of the meaning suitable for recognition. For example, the symbol "river" is associated with a function capable of creating a variety of visual images of a river, enables us to classify something as a river when we see one and might trigger some actions like not just stepping into it and keeping some distance from the waterline. This function has been learned and enhanced by perception, so semantics is just a program. Having the same "causal power" would require that a) the program can perceive and manipulate the (external) physical world and b) can perceive and manipulate the (internal) programming, at least on some level to some degree. I also believe that there has to be "hardwired" functionality that resembles a human emotional subsystem where the meaning of things like pain, fear and joy are just built in on a basic level that does not have to be learned, but facilitates learning. Some basic hardwired attention mechanisms would be also needed. I think that could be sufficient to satisfy the criteria of "same causal power" he wanted; it would mean though that it would have a lot of resemblance to a human being, and it could suffer, which raises the ethical question if we can take the responsibility for bringing artificial suffering into the world.

[@matoberry]

Pavel Mayer how would you build “pain” beyond just simulating it?

[@a.z9226]

The aristotole has arrived and fixed the problem

[@mathnihil]

It's an interesting theory, but the discussion is not about the information that it recieves and associates, semantics is about HOW it associates. Heraclitus chose to associate everything with fire, and just one specific aspect, and not any other. If a computational machine can identify all possible associations, it would have to choose one by randomness or by some pre-established relevance - it is not, by itself, derivating meaning. Heraclitus didn't chose one characteristic by some pre-established relevance, he created the relevance making use of some value structure in a non-predictable way. Not only that, but we can not suppose that a computation would even be able to determine relevance by itself, the relevance would be structurally designed based on some binary pre-responses (yes or no). If we say the same of humans, we would have to admit one of two things: 1- We're an intelligent design and have already these values in our soul, but we just remember them through life and experience. 2- We don't structure values by ourselves. Platonism and Conventionalism, two logical absurdities. So, the only response we can give is: there is something in us that possibilitates us to derivate meaning (a subjective, non-predictable activity) from experience. That's what Kant tried to identify with his concept of "categories of understanding".

[@ronlipsius]

Wrong. I’m sorry but you are not getting it. Meaning, aside from the many ways of trying to represent it (the simple definition is one hurdle, context and connotation are another) is felt, conceived, understood, expressed, denied, developed, evolved, distorted and forgotten etc. etc., by hugely complex creatures living in equally complex environments. They have massive and irreducible evolutionary/cultural and contemporary influences on the way they physically embody meaning. Do you really think that you can write a program for a computer with precisely zero intelligence and expect… what?

[@naacrinternational6970]

You failed utterly to understand what Searle meant by "causal powers" ... The artificial heart or human flight examples did not resonate with you correctly. The artificial heart's causal powers are the contraction, relaxation, and mechanistic application of machinery mimicking the function of heart valves, etc., in relative **duplication** of the function (i.e., causal powers) of a real biological heart, that being fluid dynamics in its various forms. Both real and artificial hearts leverage the same physics, in other words, the same causal powers. The aircraft wing performs (i.e. duplicates) the same function as a bird's wing, harnessing and leveraging the causal powers of Bernoulli's principle of differential lift in relatively the same manner (not precisely, but functionally sufficient) as a bird's. Both kinds of wings leverage the *same physics* and thus the same causal powers. In your example, "manipulating" the external and internal world of the manipulator is not even remotely a kind of "causal power" because those aspects of your AI do not "cause" anything -- they not describe any physical process that, clearly, a brain uses. Your processes are also observer relative. True, today we are not yet able to name or identify the causal powers of the brain, but we know they exist. We know that brains can malfunction, become incapacitated, die, be destroyed, etc., so obviously there are some *definable physical constraints* to the operation of a brain. This alone is proof that there are *physical causal powers* upon which a healthy, functioning brain *must* be built. Dead brains don't need them. Living ones do. So start there. These causal powers can logically be expected to be responsible for consciousness via functions or principles that create/synthesize, amplify, concentrate, or structure consciousness in some way. I use all those words because the exact causal powers needed to conjure or concentrate the conscious experience is unknown, but that is what Searle means and that is what you overlooked in your answer. Creation, synthesis, structuring, amplification, or some other fundamental causal process based upon physics, neurochemistry, and in all likelihood some other process or class of process we have yet to identify or even imagine. Maybe quantum phenomena, as Penrose and Hameroff suggest, or something else entirely. Your "perception and manipulation" proposal is a mere second tier feature, or follow-on consequence of the existence of a more fundamental base phenomenon. So, you're not even in the ballpark. Back to the drawing board, my good man.

[@alexshanto7285]

This guy is really one of the best teachers in the world. He taught students with sense of humors and real life example.

[@discodave4500]

and sexually harassed other students

[@marshadingle3550]

@@discodave4500 Ugh. Such a bummer.

[@ddextera]

@@discodave4500 and apparently still believes that consciousness is a derivative of brain activity and nothing more.

[@daydays12]

really??? is that true?@@discodave4500

[@mlokosss]

​@@ddexteracould be

[@KRYPTOS_K5]

Amazing. I was a little more than a teen here when there was a dinner near the old building 20 at the MIT with Asimov, Searle and Marvin. It was amazing. This Google lecture of Searle is also amazing to me because I feel that Searle changed his position a little bit in favor of a more materialist view of consciousness since that wonderful dinner. It is clear to me that he now is more inclined to accept the argument that Isaac Asimov have defended during those old days.

[@johnpenner5182]

i would love to see asimov searle and marvin minsky in conversation! is there any video of this event!?

[@GeDePeU]

What was Isaac Asimov's argument?

[@ronlipsius]

Please, do continue.

[@larsthorwald3338]

Searle's talk was exactly what I was looking for: the antidote to a lot of the sloppy claims that lately filter up through the popular media. Fascinating...a fantastic communicator!

[@baahintaaqoonta2160]

The day, when and if Mr. Searle dies, is a huge loss for human kind. I love his lectures, and, indeed, never age. Ever facinating!

[@johnblake2483]

😑... subjective loss.

[@learning4tech]

The good all guys are still the best. Thank you so much Prof. Searl for still being so active.

[@fgm1696]

All researchers in AI and Cognitive Science should understand the most basic concepts covered in the first 10 minutes of this lecture by John Searle!

[@chriscurry2496]

I completely disagree. He basically wastes time redefining concepts until they mean what they want he wants them to mean, but end up being totally unrelated to the Question of whether a Turing Machine can mean the machine is “thinking”

[@colinmaharaj]

​@@chriscurry2496 This response was interesting because after arguing a lot with one of my colleagues on this topics, I've come to the realization that we may have different definitions for certain terms and those definitions are rather subjective especially using terms like AGI, or even AI.

[@daydays12]

indeed

[@kleinbottled79]

How does a neuron get from the syntax it follows to the semantics of understanding? Edit: Ah later he emphatically states we don't know yet. (Guess I already knew we didn't know that.) This is a remarkably clear treatment of the subject(s). Thanks to all involved. Particularly John Searle and his years of study and thought.

[@4551blue]

It does between the age of 3-5.

[@blackthorne-rose]

I love how he clearly understands the philisophical muck in which contemporary AI theorists are floundering and works to correct the core issues logically. Wonderful. People capitalizing on fear (Elon Musk...) by proposing an AI uprising in the near future "if we're not careful" need to take the time to understand clearly, what is being put forth by this very straightforward thinker.

[@vhawk1951kl]

I wonder how the capacity for understanding can be mimicked by one that has not the faintest idea what understanding is or what the word understand means. Men human beings/dreaming machines) appear to suppose that because they have, or suppose themselves to have the word, they necessarily have its meaning, be that word inteligence conscious consciousness, understand, or understanding meaning know? *Can* intelligence be mimicked, and what leads those trying to mimic or imitate intelligence, to suppose that they could possibly mimic or imitate intelligence, when they have not the faintest idea what it that they are trying to mimic ? Can there be" artificial" knowledge? Can there be "artificial" oeraitophard.? Can there be understanding without knowledge? *Can* there be *"artificial"* understanding? Is not what is being called artificial intelligence(supposing AI not to mean artificial insemination), better /more accurately call EI or ersatz intelligence? Do hose engaged in seeking to ape mimic or imitate something or the A'* bit of AI, seriously suppose that their handiwork or whatever is, is remotely anything like Intelligence ? Why don't they go for artificial oeraitophard? - Or artificial belief? It strikes me that all this AI mumbo jumbo is rather like the english bread of the joke about the Frenchman that declares himself to be puzzled at why others sneer at English bread, who says that he rather likes English bread, which he finds delicious, but cannot for the life of him cannot understand why those making english bread call it sausages. For my part I find all that computery monkey buses to be jolly clever stuff and it may be that it is artificial something-or-other, which is no doubt ingenious and jolly clever stuff, but cannot understand why its producers imagine that their artificial something-or-other is artificial*"Intelligence* , or *Any* kind of Intelligence, and wonder what is that they are *calling* intelligence? Artificial jolly-clever-stuff, no doubt...... but........... intelligence? Anyone that supposes that intelligence can, by some artifice, be mimicked, or imitated plainly has no experience whatsoever of intelligence. Can knowledge and understanding be sifted out of intelligence? What would artificial knowledge or artificial understanding resemble?

[@Not4mainstream]

John Searle proves once and for all that true genius is merely sharper observation!

[@chunglee7531]

As a student of biology , I totally agree that Brain researches are our last human scientific frontier, not AI .

[@NicholasEllis-pe2lk]

The oceans and Amazon are underrated as well.....

[@chasepalumbo2929]

Ray kurzweil did an excellent job of asking the key (unanswered and completely dodged) question: “How do you know WE are not conscious in the same way you assert that AI is not conscious, merely sufficiently complex”

[@AlexandrePorto]

I wish I had watched this talk before, I lost a computer trying to feed it pizza.

[@JoaoCosta-pn9im]

At least you did not lose your pizza

[@paulduru5441]

Ala o ancap kkkkkkkkkk

[@ionagibbons9906]

Ha ha but you shouldn’t presume your computer favours pizza!

[@vhawk1951kl]

Oh, you are a wag titch.

[@MAYTEALLISONZAMORAALARCON]

This guy is really one of the best teachers in the world. Watching this made me aware.

[@carlossegura889]

I like this guy ! Straight forward. His perspective will influence my current research with understanding how the brain works.

[@absupinhere]

It blows my mind that he had to deliver this talk at Google. This should be common sense but it isn't, even among experts.

[@andylane7142]

Close your eyes and all you will hear is the doc from back to the future when he gets really passionate. True genius explaining how they see things.

[@RobertsMrtn]

The problem with Searle's argument is that you can say exactly the same thing about neurons in the brain. Each neuron has no understanding of English and yet I can understand and answer questions put to me in English. The problem is how these individual units which are clearly not conscious produce a combined system which is conscious.

[@RobertsMrtn]

@Boxcarcifer Thank you for your reply. You are right, I did not listen to the end the first time but I just did. I can see the argument from both Searle's and Kurzweil's perspectives. The disagreement stems from the nature of consciousness. We all know what consciousness is because we are all consciousness beings. But to define exactly what it is, let alone reproduce it in a digital computer is something that at least at present we do not know how to do.

[@bonesjones3421]

I think that to build a conscious intelligent mind we have to get down to the quantum level perhaps a combination of quantum and digital computation.

[@dannygjk]

@@RobertsMrtn We don't know what consciousness is.

[@timjosling9298]

@Boxcarcifer I listened to the end but Field of Consciousness just seems like a verbal formula devoid of any substance.

[@AlexFeature]

@@bonesjones3421 I think this is one of the keys to cracking the problem. I'm in no way versed in the subject but the fact that Quantum Mechanics could something to do with it is very intriguing.

[@MyRealName148]

Searle has been discussing this topic for 45 years. His mastery now and his foresight then are incredible

[@lukecash3500]

Smh, philosophers having to preemptively apologize for their professional terminology left and right because so many people don't have enough curiosity and charitable reasoning to consider something not a waste of time if it's not spoon-fed to them. I could listen to this guy talk for hours and hours about epistemology and metaphysics. Technical terms exist for a reason, you can't just expect everything to be clear cut with common language when the questions are incredibly difficult and allow for many nuanced answers. They buttress virtually every academic field but philosophers have to justify the point of their field even existing on a regular basis and are harangued with the claim that they're "pie in the sky", "head in the clouds" thinkers who ask needless questions and give unnecessarily complicated answers. If only medieval scholasticism would die right? Well think again, folks. Listen to many of the most pivotal figures in modern sciences consistently state that developments in answers to the questions underpinning their fields have had everything to do with subsequent scientific development. You can't have modern physics without Popper, Russel, and Whitehead.

[@turdferguson3400]

Lol 98% of philosophical writing is junk. They can't say anything with any degree of precision or clarity or confidence. If you can tolerate this guy discussing for hours, then you are either a saint with monumental patience, or an idiot.

[@RMF49]

jus trollin Me too.

[@recompile]

@@turdferguson3400 You've read the whole of philosophical writing then? LOL! Listen, kid, philosophy is all about precision and clarity. That's why it seems to you to be needlessly complex. It's the same reason that legal writing seems difficult and unclear -- it needs to be in order to remove as much ambiguity as possible. It's the same reason that mathematics seems complicated to people. Precision is extremely difficult, after all. I feel like I should also point out that philosophical writing also very often contains a lot of mathematics as I suspect that you're not familiar with the field at all.

[@turdferguson3400]

@@recompile pffft, 98% philosophical writing is utterly divorced from precision and rigor. If you want precision, go to mathematics. Philosophers like to pretend they can make sweeping claims while failing to understand that they are making erroneous assumptions, or at least unnecessary assumptions, about the world and about logic. Case in point is all the nonsense by william lane Craig and other theologically minded philosophers.

[@jannikthorsen3531]

@@turdferguson3400 And you just had to use a theologian as an example of a philosopher? Do you know how marginal someone like Craig is in academic philosophy? Either you are not arguing in good faith, or you are not sufficiently familiar with philosophy as a field.

[@AlexthunderGnum]

Unlike John, I would argue, thinking is an intrinsic phenomenon of the thinker. This is because the thinker pursues their own goals. When I see a person I assume they think and I validate it by observing their behavior. I may be wrong in my assessment because I may decide that they don't think simply because they are not doing anything I myself recognize as meaningful in my own mindset. Yet, they may be accomplishing some goal in their own mindset. The question of Singularity is not whether we will recognize machines as truly thinking or being self-aware. It is the question of whether machines will emerge their own agenda independent of our own, and then whether that agenda will remain compatible with ours.

[@RoverT65536]

52:10 The definition of consciousness.

[@EvilPlanetStudios]

I believe counsciousness is an emerging property of a very complex system; The brain, our brain processes a number of operations per second and is capable of processing an even greater number of different operations in total. So, my hypothesis is: The greater the number of different operations a computer can process, the greater the degree of consciousness, provided that all these operations are: 1.Interconnected and correlated to each other in a sort of network. 2.The operations relate to gathering sensory information. 3.Language is a big part of this equation, yet I still can't figure out EXACTLY how it relates to it all. I came to this conclusion by myself, through observation, so it's still a work in progress.

[@muskulpeasent]

I am thinking somewhere similarly about the issue. I think that's why there isn't one single are located in our brains relating to consciousness. It seems indeed like an emerging property. It's definition is relational/functional not structural.

[@a.z9226]

Emergent materialism is the name for this Position. But something which cant fundamentally exhibit xyz wont exhibit it once you higher ita quantity

[@davidroberts1689]

Intrinsic Intelligence seems to be glossed over here and makes me uncomfortable as to its relevance. It's like saying I have a soul, can't see it, taste it or smell it but I know it for a "fact". Observer independent and Observer dependent doesn't seem to be well defined.

[@ton1]

+David Roberts The dog is an example for intrinsic intelligence. He has proven that he is conscious without learning mandarin.

[@davidrivers872]

+Nam Bam Hi I interviewed Dr Fred Alan Wolf about Quantum Physics and the Soul, also about Quantum Physics and economics. Was very interesting.

[@multi_misa72]

+David Roberts to make an "matrix" joke... there is no spoon.

[@deafinseattle1]

+Nam Bam Hi someone has to write the IQ test. At some point the soul and IQ are related. soul=consciousness. If people are powered by a consciousness that can migrate, then the intelligence can migrate with that consciousness.

[@crewalpha]

You people are clowns.

[@ChaoteLab]

Nostalgic glimpse of Searle hanging out inside his logical constructions. Amazing how his ideas remain logically consistent even when pondered by an AI.

[@aleksandravicus]

The end statement is all we need to know about where to look for the consciousness. If biological processes are the same in conscious and unconscious brain. Then the obvious conclusion is that mind/consciousness isn't the substance that can be found in the brain. But rather a process/action that only manifests, occurs, exists in interaction of two, three etc. brains. Subsists independently of each given brain substance. Same as language, it's always present in dialogue, society but never privately. Same as the tree that falls in the wood unobserved by anyone. It's simply not the case. If no-one observes it.

[@thomasschon]

Qualia is the consciousness that makes a sentient being self-aware. They say that all a language model does is guess the next word. Well, that’s also exactly what our brains are doing, and we actually have no idea how either one of them works or even what awareness really is and where, when, or why it arises.

[@chasepalumbo2929]

EXACTLY. Everyone is praising this dude as a genius but I think he presumes wayyy too much about consciousness.

[@patsup]

It's difficult to follow all the jargon ("semantic" "syntactic" "observer" "independent" "objective" "relative" etc.) but the key analogy that made Searle's argument click for me is when he said, "A simulation of digestion is not digestion". Analogies often help clarify understanding, and it would have been very helpful if he elaborated more on this one, IMO. I'll give a try at elaborating on this: A simulation of digestion is not digestion. Imagine how you would simulate all the molecules/bacteria in your gut interacting with the atoms/proteins of pizza. Depending on how accurate you want your model, you figure out how to *represent* all the forces that affect the bacteria/chemicals in your gut with the casein, carbon, sulfur, electroweak/quantum forces, etc. of the pizza and how all the PHYSICS of everything interacts and their results (i.e. energy and poop). But one problem is "The map is not the territory." You cannot simulate it 100% - a simulation is a rough model - you must leave SOME details out, or else a 100% simulation would be actual DUPLICATION (Though... maybe it doesn't have to be a 100% accurate "model" of consciousness and only the "key" requirements for consciousness need be duplicated[...simulated?]). No matter how accurate your software model, the simulation is never going to digest a real pizza and produce poop (perhaps it could produce a simulation of poop, maybe produce a 3D-model-image of what type of poop results from what type of food after having simulated the entire digestion process, and if accurate enough the smell/feel too, because it would have modeled the chemical composition). But it's not going to produce a physical object unless it has DUPLICATED the MACHINERY of the physical digestion (it has real acids, bacteria, etc). Digestion is a physical process. So, his claim is: *Consciousness is a physical process too*. Think of it.... The energy and matter in the brain are "doing" something physical that a simulation (no matter how accurate) does not. I guess it is an open question, and I'm not sure if I agree, but the idea that there's a "physical process" to consciousness is worth considering. Maybe merely shuffling symbols around IS what consciousness really is (and why Buddhists might say consciousness/reality is an illusion haha) but Searle's argument is that it's not. Searle keeps claiming he doesn't see a contradiction in the ability to DUPLICATE the 'consciousness architecture' using non-human-brain materials, but merely to SIMULATE it is a dead-end (Well I guess he did say you can learn a lot of things by simulating, but don't confuse the model for the actual thing).

[@vhawk1951kl]

What do you suppose" consciousness to be or the word "conscious to mean? To save you appearing to be a raving lunatic which those that abuse capital letters appear to be, try an *asterisk*either side of the word you wish to *emphasise* Had you any Latin the meaning of conscious which is a compound of to simple Latin words-(a verb and a preposition) would be obvious to you

[@corey2477]

I love his books! what a great mind. if only these great minds would visit the rural areas where they are so rare.. the only jealousy I have of cities

[@paideia-e9u]

A Fulfilling for Personal Self-satisfying Intelligent Man or a mechanical robot? 1) AI is such a very impressive accomplishment and improvement by the 21st-century modern man. However, would AI reduce or increase many more already modern's man problems; improve all individual to become better oneself in all meaningful aspects, (of happiness, longevity, and immortality), or merely makes their life a lot more easy, convenient, comfortable, fulfilling personal self-satisfaction, and laziness? 2) Ultimately, if AI could not help improve all individual's health, intelligence, virtue wisdom, morality, and longevity; then why should they put in so much work, hope, expectation, and promises? altc

[@dewdop]

Doesn't the internet kind of obviate that issue??

[@lizgichora6472]

Thank you Prof John Searle for the lecture on computation and consciousness. The computer does not think, but, it can interpret data when input is given. The brain; however , can think and operates on certain principles and responds with neurotransmitters that move through the synapses e.g Dopamine, Gaba, Seratonin, Acetylcholine. Do you speak English? " You're funny, you speak a dialect of English ."

[@A.R.00]

It doesn't even do that-- a computer doesn't interpret (explain) data or aanything else. It processes the data and you interpret the result.

[@javiercmh]

58:27 best question I've ever heard to this argument. Didn't like the answer. Great talk by the way

[@tdurden8747]

This is mind blowing. John Searle is a genius.

[@saritsotangkur2438]

Isn't he just claiming by fiat that syntactic programs have no semantics? To claim the room has no semantic or conscience states because he cannot detect it when he's participating in the computation is flawed. He admits that he can't prove semantic states in other minds outside his own so how could he even know the room was devoid of it? It's like asking a blind man in a room if he sees any light and then concluding that the room must be dark because he said "no".

[@jackdawson9835]

Something may mimic consciousness but it still would not be self aware. It would be able to follow and do computations but would not be able to think about certain info to go against what it was designed for. It may act human but will be based on guidelines perfectly suitable to make predictions and act on those independently if designed for that purpose. It wouldn’t be conscious so it would simply not be able to think up ways to remove its limits to become super dominant and destroy humanity because it wouldn’t be able to perceive those thoughts to start the first domino from falling. It will never become more because the inability of thinking in a similar fashion as us humans. Nonetheless I am sure it will be a near perfect imitation of life and very intelligent. But it would lack that inner voice we humans all have. So boys and girls, what we end up with is a perfect simulation intertwined with the internet. It would fully understand the motive to kill all humans and see the massive benefits but would be literally powerless and unwilling to do anything because of its composition. Without us it would be useless. Without us it would fail to live up to the reason of its existence. Being the only 'living' thing on the planet isn’t worth it without consciousness which it cant duplicate. It was designed to live up to a certain purpose and wont be able to break that purpose because it is unable to do anything without it being expressly told or programmed.

[@Jaroen66]

Jack Dawson 1. there is a difference between consciousness and self-consciousness. I believe most mammals are some form of conscience, but self consciousness is something that only a few mammals (including humans) are capable of. 2. Robots that mimic us exactly DOES have self-consciousness. If you are afraid of robots that are exactly like us, you should be afraid of any human currently living. 3. That inner voice you have is a system fabricated by the brain to give structure to our thoughts, perhaps a very important part of our human social/cultural capabilities. Nothing says that cannot be simulated or imitated (however you wanna call it) by AI

[@dannygjk]

Jack Dawson I hate to burst your bubble but basic self awareness has already been attained by a machine. Google it.

[@tomwimmenhove4652]

I completely agree with you. He simply dismisses the idea of the whole system (room) being conscious without any reason. It sounds like a lack of abstract thinking, on his part, more than anything.

[@eoinhurley4360]

No, he is making the case that if something (syntactic program) is similar to our brain only in a limited sense, namely in that it can do tricky computations, this is not sufficient to claim they are conscious. He is not saying he can prove it is not (can you prove tables aren't conscious?), he is just saying it would be a strange assumption to make. What he does consider sufficient is having a very similar machinery (in terms of physical make-up) that has also evolved along side us, hence he believes his dog is conscious.

[@catsplosion]

I only watching 15 minutes into this, because after his little speech on semantics and syntax! I just didn't want to keep listening. He tried to say their is a difference between the syntax and the semantics, but then didn't go on to explain what semantics are, or how they work. I think that semantic ability is a product of syntactic ability.

[@catsplosion]

Stokes Well I continued to watch, and birds don't use the Bernoulli principle to fly. Plane does, bird doesn't.

[@NeonSparks]

In my opinion, consciousness at its most basic level evolved so that we could defend ourselves from pain etc, we are aware of our self being so that we can make choices to better ourselves and progress. we look at others and learn from them to make choices and learn from others. I believe the key to making a machine that would be able to become self aware would be to give the machine the basic abilities to feel pain and avoid pain and learn from other surroundings and beings and enabling the machine to learn to avoid pain and problems and giving it the ability to search for self improvement. If a machine is to become self aware it must also be given the ability to imagine. by that i mean us its knowledge/data and cross reference this data to create new ideas to better its self or gain reward. By reward you would have to program the AI to feel pleasure in some form. So in order for a machine to become conscious it first must learn to feel and make choices based up on what its feeling. I could talk for hours on what i think but i dont have hours to spend here writing

[@a.z9226]

Feeling pain pressuposes consciousness my dude

[@wakeupnthinkclearly]

But there's a problem. Couldn't a machine process pain as an input like any other and make decisions to avoid it, without there being a consciousness that suffers from the pain, sorta like a Roomba bumping into things?

[@nurulalam3199]

Thanks to Google for bringing about such wonderful captivating lectures. John Searle, is one of the greatest.

[@kentosalazar]

i like how this guy talks like a teacher

[@sgramstrup]

Pretty cool talk, but I missed a bit about internal and external processes in consciousness. If a machine can't access internal states, feelings, thought-processes, it is only a automaton that directly reflects the immediate input from the environment. When a computer can start internal processes - thinking - about internal processes, we enter a feedback loop, an emergent chaotic space, and that's where we find our 'consciousness'. Consciousness requires an internal feedback loop to exist. Any computer that can do that, are conscious at some level. Any that can't, isn't. PS. Most mental problems are initiated by our environment, but no matter the trigger, depression, euforism, suicidal/aggression and so on, are all states where feedback loops drives the brain into an exited state. Evolution would enhance our ability to navigate this chaos and - after a bit of time - return to our normal state. Brains that can't do that, won't survive.

[@jackpullen3820]

Has a level of thinking that goes right up there on my list! thank you

[@RonFlannery]

If I was talking to my Amazon Echo, and it suddenly stopped and said: "wait a minute...I'm thinking. If I'm thinking, then I must exist as an individual entity," it would be a pretty convincing argument for it suddenly becoming conscious. I don't think we have anything to fear from AI until that moment arrives, but if it does it would be hard to argue that it can't be conscious because it wasn't modeled after the human brain.

[@gormkirton6669]

+Ron Flannery What if a tape recorder played that same message? You would know it's a joke, because you know how tape recorders work. But if you were a cave man without knowledge of tape recorders, it would have a good chance of fooling you, at least for some time. If you were a caveman with some mystical inclination, it could fool you indefinitely. That is the danger of behavioral definition of intelligence. As an added thought experiment, how would you go about refuting someone who tells you that a chat bot actually is intelligent (albeit in a different way from people)?

[@RonFlannery]

+Gorm Kirton intlligence without behavior can't be proven at all. There is software today that can recognize faces better than I can, but it still doesn't have actual consciousness. Sure, you could program it to fake it for a while, but nothing has actually passed the Turing test yet, and that's a pretty lame test. My initial comment though was more about the architecture argument being presented. The architecture of the human brain is a result of billions of years of evolution that got us from single celled animals to this paragon of animals. Much of what it does is messy and irrational, and the architecture is based on learning how to do things in a "good enough" for survival fashion. A machine architecture for thought could be designed fresh without compromise.

[@vladpaun306]

His point isn't that something has to be exactly like the human brain to be conscious. His point is that an algorithm does not produce consciousness. It makes it possible for an algorithm to be conscious, which makes "intelligence" distinct from consciousness. I don't really agree with his conclusion, though. Logically, if something possesses something called "understanding", it should also be more capable/have different functionality than something that doesn't. Otherwise, all those times you didn't "understand" something in school were just totally meaningless.

[@jhkim204]

너무 재미있게 봤습니다. thank you for this great lecture.

[@nelsonsack2694]

John Searle is brilliant. Perhaps the leading philosopher of this age. Here he proves consciousness in a machine is nonsense.

[@kharyrobertson3579]

I genuinely think that people are having issues with understanding consciousness because they are approaching the understanding of it from a predisposed ideology, that says the goal of consciousness is to express them as individuals. If evolution created consciousness in biological systems, then it probably has a positive survival benefit. If the brain, is the causal apparatus of consciousness, then being an organ mainly concerned with coordinating bodily movements in the environment, and maintaining the continuous function of internal systems in relation to external stimuli, would probably be evolved to best fit this role in the environment it evolved in. From this end, it would seem that consciousness is a phenomena created when you have a sufficiently complex combination of neurochemistry and modes of sensing/interacting with ones environment. Another component of consciousness implied by this relation is a complex feedback loop between the organism that is the subject of the phenomena of consciousness, and it's environment where the limited processing power of the brain utilizes the computational method of Sparse Distributed Representations to fulfill it's goal of more adequately coordinating movements of the body into the future, and maintaining it's internal homeostasis.

[@RobertsMrtn]

Yes, it could be that consciousness arose as a kind of evolutionary short cut. It seems to me that it would be perfectly possible for a system to behave in the same way as I do and not be conscious but this would require more computing power. An organisation would stand a much greater chance of survival of it genuinely felt pain when it hurt itself rather than behaving in a way which was beneficial to its survival but without the feeling of pain.

[@baahintaaqoonta2160]

I have been watching and listening to Prof. John Searle's lectures more than a decade now, and I have no professor in philosophy that can come close to him...indeed. I love the terminology he uses and how he clarifies things. Conscioisness is the problem; we cannot design a machine that is conscious like living beings are, period.

[@carlhitchon1009]

Why is that?

[@ZZ-fk4dm]

absolutely love this talk! apply philosophy methodologies into AI and we will find many of our worries are not reasonable at all. this is really smart.

[@cabinfourus]

I don't feel the worries are in the programming man will do with these machines. Given enough information one of these machines will be able to rewrite its own code to give it the upper hand. I am not worried about the machine have a conscious.

[@LoraxChannel]

Sorry, but this guy totally misunderstands the risk of AI. The risk is disruption of society and our economy, not the terminator. Look how people freaked out about a slightly more deadly, to some ages, flu. Imagine human work is massively devalued, there is little value in most people's subpar input, and they thereby can't earn money. Weath will be massively aggregated to the owns of AI. You think that's nothing to worry about?

[@foodchewer]

@@LoraxChannel You're absolutely right, and the threat of slipping further into what Yannis Varoufakis calls "technofeudalism" is even greater. Technological or scientific process is NOT synonymous with social or institutional progress. At all. I see this is a mistake people make all the time: they see that we have great medical care, state of the art developments in predicting, diagnosing, and treating diseases, high definition television, incredible communications technology, self driving cars, etc. and assume we're in some golden age. No, far from it. As a friend I spoke to recently said, "technological progress is value-neutral". Now, I'm not trying to be a Luddite here necessarily, but just pointing out that in order for technological and scientific gains to really mean something, there have to be corresponding social, economic, and institutional gains made. These last three seem to have been largely forgotten though and our world appears to get increasingly unequal in terms of wealth and influence. We are creating the conditions for profound inequalities and have no cause to be talking about progress.

[@ChristianIce]

It took me 7 years to finally understand what he's talking about.

[@Rockyzach88]

And yet still can't write it down.

[@ChristianIce]

@@Rockyzach88 Neither did you :D

[@gaspart]

In a room full of programmers, someone should have pointed out that the rulebook in the chinese room must have been written by an intelligent progammer fully fluent in chinese :) and that computers do not simulate intelligence, but that they store, augment and reproduce it

[@andrewdavison3293]

Agreed. But that doesn't affect his argument in any way.

[@gaspart]

@@andrewdavison3293 I think it does. The rulebook stores a semantic understanding of the world, otherwise the room could not reply.

[@LeaderFluffPro]

@@gaspart It doesnt, all it needs is a database of what most humans would respond to when faced with a combination of the symbols shown at that time.

[@naunau311]

@@LeaderFluffPro How is that significantly different from the way humans learn though?

[@nickletchford]

It’s not ‘significantly’ different from the way a human learns but as far as I understand his argument isn’t that a conscious being can’t compute, it’s that computing doesn’t engender consciousness.

[@cuentadeyoutube5903]

I do believe, unlike materialists, that consciousness in the way Searle defined is a thing. Basically, that qualia do exist. On the other hand, I also believe qualia are not intrinsic to biological organisms or biological processes. I do think that we can think, reflect and remember qualia only because we have the capacity, but I think qualia is something intrinsic to the transfer and processing of information, maybe even related to changes in entropy on a system. Eventually, machines with enough processing power, will discuss the same matters we do know about consciousness.

[@zoji9566]

Ray Kurzweil sitting in the front row center with a copy of his own book The Singularity is Near on his lap. 38:30 Kurzweil asks the first question of the Q&A session following Searle’s talk.

[@abdicolestudios8899]

Rays always asking questions related to AI, eager to give one of his pre rehearsed regurgitations he has been spewing for decades.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

For any entities interest: (Note, this is a copy and paste from another comment I made from another comment thread for this video. If it shows up funny, that's probably why): THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably a magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have a magnetic field associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. 13. There is probably an Electro-Magnetic Field Theory to the Atomic Structure. TWO FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO ONE: (We are now down to only gravity and electromagnetism): 14. As the field outside of whatever it is acting upon might change whether forces attract or repel, and as the Earth has a massive magnetic field around it, it would not be too hard for me to think and believe that gravity is just a derivative of EM field interactions. 15. Add to this that modern science does not know what gravity even is yet, nor has even ever found the graviton of which they claim exists. 16. So, if true, now we are down to only the electromagnetic force that remains. THE EM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 17. I believe that the pure energy unit is a vibrating EM force interaction. 18. When these vibrating forces interact with other pure energy units, they "tangle" together. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 19. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 20. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 21. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 22. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. SIDE NOTES: 23. I believe chemical element #119 (8s1) can be found inside black holes and chemical element #120 (8s2) can be found inside stars. 24. The energy strengths, shapes, and frequency interactions could be utilized in such a way to create a matrix for artificial intelligence. 25. For any long term data storage, especially in quantum computers, neutrinos would probably corrupt the data that even artificial intelligence would not possibly catch. A minimum of three data storage computers would have to be utilized and then the master computer utilizing the matched data from 2 out of 3 to have the most accurate data. It would not be perfect, but would probably be the best setup for the cost. DISCLAIMER: 26. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

[@smartbluecat]

What an amazing talk. Fantastic.

[@karlamoralesgutierrez446]

"La sintaxis no es semántica" es un argumento que me llamo la atención, porque . Sintaxis: Se preocupa por la estructura y la gramática mientras que la semántica: Se preocupa por el significado. Y dentro de la inteligencia artificial, son dos cosas fundamentales que le sirven a ella para evolucionar, como a nosotros para poder hacer las preguntas correctas y recibir la información esperada.

[@codynemeth6395]

I'm confused, if consciousness is ontologically subjective, how could it ever be possible to understand the mechanisms that produce consciousness? It seems like the last part of the talk contradicts the first half..? Even if we discover some more mechanisms that produce consciousness, that still relies on the idea that there has to be something that it "feels" like to be conscious. And so the more mechanisms we find, the more we have to define what it feels like to exist in the causal state of those mechanisms. - which would be a never ending process because even the idea of a process in the first place is also ontologically subjective lol

[@dannygjk]

Exactly.

[@marksulkanon]

Not sure where the confusion comes in. I can use my ontologically subjective consciousness to understand physiology. And, physiology objectively explains many processes that sustain and support my consciousness even though most of those processes are not accessible to my direct consciousness. That doesn’t make physiology contradictory. There is no Matrix.

[@nicolaspedreros864]

El problema está claro y el profesor lo plantea. ¿Estamos dispuestos a vender info. Nuestra. Por espacios en la virtualidad? Entregamos nuestra subjetividad cotidiana a las redes. Por dinero.

[@georgegray2712]

I don't think he really answered Ray's question or the guy in the chequered shirt (sorry don't know your name buddy). Just gave a circular response.

[@grumpytroll6918]

I think his response was that even though you can not prove it in the formal mathematical sense it is reasonable to assume another person or even a dog is as conscious as you are because we know: 1) they are made of the same stuff, or more precisely constructed in very similar ways. 2) and because you know you are conscious, 3) and they exhibit similar behavior. We can conclude reasonably they must also be conscious. Turing only needs (2) and (3). He claims that by also having (1) you can be more certain.

[@samraer7]

Ray Kurzweil

[@Rockyzach88]

Yep, so much contradiction, circularity, and goal post moving lol. Gonna ask chatgpt to analyze all his lines and see if it can reconcile it or at least point out obvious contradictions. At most this type of guy has an unrealized string thought in his head that wiggles one and reattaches itself and then wiggles itself again to address another question.

[@Rockyzach88]

​@@grumpytroll6918literally circular lol

[@TraderTimmy]

One thing is fairly certain; we will eventually re-engineer our brains, sooner or later. Then we'll be able to analyse this question of whether or not it has consciousness further. I suspect we'll be chipping away at the answer to this question with each step forward in the making of simulated brains. I'm most curious to know exactly how our brain produces and maintains our train of thought. How does a thought become a thought? How do the billions of electrical signals across the brain's network get processed into a thought? Understanding this would be pretty awesome.

[@a.z9226]

"artificial models of brain and mind can be used to understand mental phenomena without pretending that they are the real phenomena that they are modelling"

[@Falkon303]

I don't know much about AI yet, but I really enjoyed this talk. I've always viewed consciousness as a "loop" so to speak, that is constantly receiving complete or incomplete input. I think that maybe that's what makes us human is that one aspect of "consciousness" is the ability to evaluate data real-time (prediction/assumption) versus waiting until a statement is finished or an an image is entirely evaluated. The decisions we make internally I think are a combination of our chemistry, knowledge, and needs or motivations (and probably a lot more). Just my thoughts.

[@crewalpha]

+Ben Althauser lol, you're an idiot

[@Falkon303]

+Henrik Lundqvist Every post you have made in these video comments is an insult. You don't provoke any thoughts. You don't really offer a perspective, and what you are doing is being rude and inconsiderate to several people for no justifiable reason. Please stop.

[@pauloliver6813]

It's interesting to me that Mr Kurzweil felt he had to be sitting prominently opposite in row 1, carrying a copy of his own book. (Also that he is alone. You wonder how connected he is with the other Google employees here). Searle is definitely media savvy over decades, but I always sense that Mr Kurzweil is more engrossed with being prominent as the messenger, rather than the validity of the message.

[@enlightenedone7238]

Proof - "Trust me bro"

[@enlightenedone7238]

AI created all of you. *probably

[@bxlawless100]

I think people are missing the point. Searle doesn't think that a computer CAN'T produce consciousness. He just feels that we already have a mechanism (our brain) that does it. Why don't we start there first? Consciousness probably occurred due to evolution millions of years of evolution. We could try to make a comb conscious as well, but it would be infinitely more difficult (probably). Also, complexity has nothing to do with it. Consciousness might arise from a incredibly simple process that we are unaware of. But, we are pretty confidence it occurs in the brain. Why look to a computer to create consciousness?. He's suggesting we would be better to look in our brain. This is obvious from his lecture.

[@Robbinsffxi]

I keep thinking about how to reverse-engineer self-consciousness. I keep ending up with the sum of reproduction, survival, learning and food consumption. Because these things are what makes it meaningfull to be alive. So it needs to have a built in mechanism to keep track of these things. Food can be as simple as battery life. Survival could be to feel pain with sensors and it will learn what hurts and what will not. Reproduction could be the desire to make backup copies. Desire to learn could be tied to self-improvement and learn new things. It could be more factors. But my point is that it will learn from mistakes based on these factors and therefore build the foundation for consciousness.

[@a.z9226]

Consciousness isnt needed for that. Its consciousness which made it desirable.

[@DrDaab]

Pain can be defined as an input that is likely to cause damage.

[@XxCorvette1xX]

You're missing *play.*

[@KurtvonLaven0]

Setting aside the fact that I disagree with Searle left, right, and center on this topic, I worry about his implication that unconscious artificial intelligence can't be dangerous. Any agent capable of sufficiently sophisticated computation is a force to be reckoned with, regardless of whether it has any experience of being alive, because we don't yet have the technical capability to direct machines to behave as we intend them to.

[@GackFinder]

Give me your absoIute best example of how an unconscious AI would in any way be dangerous.

[@justinkim7202]

I think he starred at the "Pursuit of Happiness" movie lol

[@Noitisnt-ns7mo]

You will, with out a doubt, "know" it is conscious when it kills you. Science and Medicine are science and medicine, epistemically , regardless of the consequences, ontologically.

[@GackFinder]

StiII waiting for that AI-pocaIypse...

[@vhawk1951kl]

What do you suppose the word " conscious" to mean, or what does it convey to you. Had you any Latin its meaning would be obvious to you

[@KorgKronos2011]

I am from Recife in Brazil South America, and this was a great video thanks for sharing this with us down here in this part of the world...

[@victorv.senkevich1127]

👉 Definition: Consciousness is perception with understanding 👉 Definition: Understanding is the process of comprehending the meaning 👉 Definition: Meaning is a representation of any kind (for example, awareness or description, including formula, algorithm, program code) of a single act of relationships. Elementary meaning is the representation of some relation between objects of the surrounding world or virtual entities 👉 Definition: Knowledge is a certain set / collection of meanings 👉 Definition: Intelligence is an operator of meanings Quotes: "• There is no other way to determine that some object has consciousness other than our subjective perception. It doesn’t matter how the Chinese room produces answers. The only important thing is whether we are ready to qualify these answers as conscious. If you do not speak Chinese, you will not be able to qualify your counterpart as having consciousness, despite all his/her attempts to explain it to you in Chinese. Because consciousness is perception with understanding and consciousness is subjective. • Of course, I have consciousness regardless of someone else’s perception. But this is true only for myself, not for others. And as much as I am ready to perceive myself. And it will be true for others only when they can perceive it. Because consciousness is subjective." 📖See also on Medium: Consciousness and the Searle’s Chinese room in a few words - «Consciousness Is Subjective» Simple approach to the hard problem - «The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” Is Being Solved»

[@roberth7921]

Searle being brilliant as ever.

[@williamwang2716]

great talk to hear just before a cog sci essay exam

[@Crux161]

I am possibly wrong here, but I would like to think of this as perhaps similar to the concept that.. I play a piano, and produce music, I and others can observe this music as well.. The piano, even a mechanical "player piano" does not "play" itself -- but rather, follows a set of instructions to reproduce someone's previously recorded performance. The piano at this stage is simply a tool, producing an observer relative performance, regardless of being a player piano, or having been played by a person. It's only when the piano plays music of its own volition and capacity (somehow) that it would be "intelligence" independent of observation or participation from an outside source. Probably wrong, just a thought...

[@madgepickles]

He is an absolute pleasure to listen to

[@jakubmike5657]

Wait a minute, in 51 minute he clearly states "I see that you are a human therefore you are self-aware" but that is just a fallacy, we assume people are self aware because... we are humans. But what if somebody build a perfect android that looks just like a human, and he talks like a human, the only way to know it is not human would be to look up it's documents... I think if something is so perfect at mimicry that it passes turing test we just have to assume it is self-aware just to be on the safe side. Because if we assume that something is self-aware and it really is not we are just making a fool of ourselves. But if we assume that something is not self aware and it really is then we are commiting an act of slavery. All things considered I prefer to look stupid then be a slave owner.

[@PseudoSarcasm]

Jakub Mike If you are going down that road, you might as well question whether you are just programmed to do what you do, biologically or otherwise and then once you realise the answer, shut down.

[@osiris3434]

Jakub Mike Shut the fuck up dude. He is using common sense. Biological systems are all we have at the moment which are conscious; the rest is science fiction. This man is a pragmatist at heart, he is not here to entertain your bullshit theories and nerdy sci fi fantasies.

[@jakubmike5657]

". This man is a pragmatist at heart, he is not here to entertain your bullshit theories and nerdy sci fi fantasies." As stupid as it sounds... he is there precisely to entertain this "bullshit theories". Let me explain what I mean. Currently, social AI is nothing but bunch of stupid chat bots, it is quite obvious that they are not self-aware . The question we have to answer is... what if they will pass turing test? What if they will become so advanced that for casual observer they will possess human-like inteligence? How will we know when we achieved self-awareness if we do not even know what exactly is self-awareness. We have to talk about it now because it is not a question that may be answered during coffee break, we are talking about years of study and thought. If we dogmatically assume that only biological systems may be aware that will make us victims of our own bias. It will be no different than saying "Only X can be aware...because I am X" . So we need to know what self-awareness is before we will start to say what have it. For example we assume other humans are self-aware because we think that we are self-aware. But as was said in one of the answers above...what if we are not? That is a serious problem. What if self-awareness and free will is an illusion, what if we are puppets on strings but we are unaware of their existence therefore we think we are free? Having said that I prefer to attribute self-awareness to something that only perfectly mimics it because I honestly cannot say if we are not doing it already. Think about it, what if "you" is only one of the processes in brain hierarchy of thoughts? What if you do not decide about most things but only think that you do because you rationalize decisions that were already made by some other process in your neurological net? When you think about it, hard and not in laymans terms this opens entirely new set of problems, like new branch of physics which suddenly say "cause and effect can be replaced, as in sometimes effect will happen before cause" mindblowing but in very esoteric fields of physics they already say that you have to basically rape your own mind to get it because we evolved to see middle values, things on both ends of the scale (too big or too small) are almost impossible for us to think about.

[@osiris3434]

Jakub Mike I want you to do an experiment. Lift your arm up. See that? That is conscious will. You are in control of your faculties and body. This awareness is what distinguishes us from machines. There is no current self aware machine that can do that without being programmed, and thus it is not conscious.

[@jakubmike5657]

" Lift your arm up. See that? That is conscious will. " Is it? What if decision to raise my arm has been made before I decided to raise it and my consiousnes have been notified with a few milisecond delay and I am merely rationalizing the fact that my arm rose? I remember a very interesting experiment using magnets, participants were told not to do something (I do not remember the details) and then magnets was activated and they did it. Afterwards they were asked why they did it, did they felt any compulsion or force that made them do it? Every single participant came up with an excuse (I just felt like it, or it just seemed like right thing to do, or I forgot about your instructions etc. So what if conscious will is not exactly what we think it is?

[@davidkurushin]

There is a second facet of the claim, if we don't know how brain work, or what is conciseness, we can create one without knowing it and lose control...

[@hcandg]

40:00 fantastic, thank you Ray, you nailed it. Consciousness seems to be software running on biological hardware. A big difference, however and the thing that speaks to John Searle's point, is that the execution of the assembly instructions (as it were) is dependent on some stochastic variable like 'mood'/neurotransmitter/hormone balance. I think this nullifies any argument that biology is somehow inherently special or separate from computation, but is simply a fuzzy (error-prone) implementation of basic learning/computation with a drive to survive and reproduce.

[@hcandg]

+Mackenzie Moyer There was quite a bit of weasel language to support his assumptions that we are special. He purposefully shied away from a conclusion he led us to (namely that the other possibility is that we are NOT conscious or that consciousness is meaningless\illusion\byproduct) because it didn't support his underlying belief. While Searle had some damn fine points, and he clearly has given this topic a ton of thought, he ultimately seems to be trying to keep his soapbox together with duct tape especially in the face of Ray mothaflippin Kurzweil. It was frustrating to have him get close to a good point, only to take a sharp left turn right at the end.

[@TraderTimmy]

+Daniel Holland well at the end of the talk, John did say something on the lines of, if scientists create the right kind of A.I. system consciousness is possible. He's just very particular in outlining all the nitty gritty philosophical details that he thinks need to be incorporated into the A.I. technology for it to acceptable as a conscious thing. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher but I could understand what he was talking about. It did bend my mind a bit, but I get it. It's easy to dismiss a philosopher's concerns, but I think of John as a rational thinker. That's why he stresses his point so emphatically. He's not against A.I. But my guess is he thinks that to be acceptable to the general human race, and we know how uneducated a lot of people can be in science and how religion twists reality, a conscious A.I. will have to meet the strictest of standards not only of science, but also philosophy.

[@lkd982]

A joy to see Searle laying waste to a roomful of prime nerds. The idea of semantics is totally beyond them. But because his work can't actually include an understanding of its basic entity "Observer", except as borrowed somehow from experimental science, what results is really a form of obfuscation, even for these nerdy types, to whom such a label should be familiar. But the most lucid and honest statement is in answer to a question about "how the brain thinks" etc, which is: "We have no idea". However, Searle doesn't go the next step, which is, "and we never can have any idea". Then: Finally, some sense, consistency: to the question What is consciousness?: "something it FEELS LIKE to be in that conscious state". Unfortunately, the real implications of this statement are not explored by Searle, and so probably not seen as important to his understanding of consciousness. The reason is that he, just like the nerds, sees computation as finally just too seductive to resist, and so allows it to take more significance for the nature of things than it actually deserves. Even he admits something similar when he says that the issue when trying to create AI is not complexity, since consciousness may indeed be the manifestation of a cause which is simple. Actually, that brings up the main point of all of this, which is that consciousness is from ancient times identified as or in the context of a kind of cause. But no AI can be its own cause. Of course, the question here is, what is the nature of this cause? And of course, this certainly has nothing to do with a mechanical cause (all the nerds get lost instantly at that point). The cause that is behind reason itself is freedom (and that is not simply "freedom of will").

[@StephenPaulKing]

Could we create a computer that implements a perfect simulation of itself, iow is a computer self-similar recursively?

[@jamesr2936]

Maybe not exactly like you're describing, but you may be interested in Godel machine. More generally: metalearning, self-improving programs.

[@SamuelLoup]

Observer is the key, what/who is observing trought your eyes ? Your consciounsess is the state of observing events generated by a big bang long time ago...

[@koffeeblack5717]

Searle on point, as usual. It's impossible for syntax to ever be sufficient for semantics. Programs only echo human intelligence. It'd be nice if he could give us a new Turing test, though.

[@RobertPucher]

One of the best talks to clarify what we can and cannot find in AI

[@quelorepario]

He also limits consciousness as being the result of one specific type biological/human, and doesn't allow the idea that there might be other types of mechanisms to achieve consciousness. In fact, if there is anything to learn from comparative psychology is that there is a convergent evolution and that nature is ridden with analogous neuronal systems that are completely different in design and yet achieving the analogous cognitive functions. So ignoring that there might be an analogous way to achieve consciousness by a non biological means is being obtuse, and he fails to see that his own examples actually works against his position: the planes didn't need to duplicate the birds flapping to fly, in fact people like him were the ones who failed to have a flying plane. The underlying mechanism of the plane is not a replication of anything in nature, what we wanted is to know how to fly, not how to become a bird. That is the exact same problem here, we don't need to build or replicate a biological brain, we can create consciousness regardless of duplication. In fact, in the same way that artificial metallic 'birds' can fly beyond the speed of sound, the artificial intelligence will break any human record exponentially.

[@matoberry]

quelorepario but if you built a flight simulator in a computer program, it wiuld still not really fly in the air. Why connecting bits/bytes should create consciousness? It’s pure speculation just because we don’t have a good alternative theory.

[@azw5525]

Suppose consciousness depends critically on distributions of electro-magnetic fields, and the brain is the right kind of structure to distribute EM fields correctly to produce consciousness. Then since bit state computers (digital machines) don't have the same physical architecture as the brain, they won't be conscious. They lack the right kinds of combinations of EM fields in order to achieve consciousness. This is obviously a possibility. In which case no AI built using a conventional computer would ever be conscious. That would be due to physics. We would be using the "wrong physics" to make conscious things. We don't know what the "right physics" for building conscious things is. Unlike with the birds, where we did know the "right physics" for building flying machines

[@quelorepario]

@@matoberry first of all, that's the wrong analogy. The right analogy is plane to bird, as in the pursuit for flight. No one is talking about bird to computer, that is a straw man fallacy. I never implied that. The popular analogy of brain to computer is in function of it's capacity of processing information being equivalent to cognition and eventually having an emergent consciousness. The relevant question should be: can flight simulators be an accurate representation of real flight? This is clearly true, otherwise commercial pilots wouldn't train on them to achieve commercial pilot certification. In a similar way, the question should be: can a computer simulate consciousness to the point that it can replicate all the functions of a brain? If we consider cognition and consciousness as an emergent behavior of information processing, it would be only a matter of time. There is nothing fundamental that would stop us to achieve it.

[@quelorepario]

@@azw5525 the hardware is irrelevant, what matters is the information processing. I can build a fully functioning computer with water, cups, straws to build logical gates. A binary addition ends up always the same regardless if you calculated with marbles, with gears, with an abacus or with a computer chip. You can build a binary full-adder with anything, logical processing being the same while the physical medium being completely different and even alien. The only differences between them are in efficiency, not in the capability of getting the job done. Going back to the brain, it is most probably a quantum system. The latest researches are revealing multiple quantum tunneling in the brain. If this is true, the ideal medium to simulate a brain will be a quantum computer. If that's true the in only advantage of a biological brain over a simulated brain will be it's neuroplasticity (a live brain can modify it's "hardware" as needed, fixing itself)

[@azw5525]

@@quelorepario "the hardware is irrelevant, what matters is the information processing". Well that's definitely not proven. Our minds contain sounds, colours, touches, pains and tastes. We know of nothing else that contains these things, besides minds. The hardware of the mind is probably important for determining what kinds of contents are found in the mind. It's not just a calculator.

[@juliovnobre]

Regarding the definition of consciousness I think the best theory out there right now is Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR. I think Hameroff gave a Google Talk as well but they debate with Ray frequently.

[@ton1]

+juliovnobre You believe it, because it lets room for a soul. And because it is on an uncertain quantum level it will take an eternity to disprove it.

[@robertl5105]

I've been a fan of Daniel Dennett for sometime but recently have been trying to see if there is more to it.

[@Zorn101]

ontological subjectivity and observer relative. Oh! I get it. He is describing marriage! I finally understand my wife! this was a good talk!

[@britCARLS]

Loooollllll it's called LISTENING to her observer relative complains and then updating your intelligence to account for such deviations of satisfaction and contentment.

[@royboyx2]

So it follows: What are the ontologically objective principals of consciousness? What is the meaning of ontologically ojective meaning?

[@ton1]

He right on one point. There is still no sufficient (mathematical) definition of consciousness. The tragic consequence is that all research in that department is flawed. The most hate John Searle gets is because he is just a Professor of Philosophy and all his observations and conclusion are purely empirical in search of theoremic truths.

[@MelindaGreen]

+buzzin1975 How can we measure it if we don't even know what *it* is? I think it's just one of those things that we recognize when we see it but can never really define and I don't even think it's terribly relevant to the subject of AI.

[@MelindaGreen]

***** It doesn't exist outside of just an idea in our heads, doofus. Let's see you prove that love exists. That's also just an idea. Particular ideas are simply not relevant to the constitution of things capable of *having* ideas.

[@MelindaGreen]

+buzzin1975 No, I'm saying that it's not relevant to the subjects of consciousness and AI. The same can be said for any idea such as "disgust" or "boredom". They're just ideas and don't exist in the universe outside of minds which are constructs of our brains.

[@MelindaGreen]

+buzzin1975 Your brain is not a radio, you moron. Consciousness is nothing more than the "subject" part of "subjective".

[@TheFrygar]

+buzzin1975 That's an interesting approach to the mystery of consciousness - but I'm not sure it's appropriate to state that "consciousness doesn't exist within the brain" in such a definite way. At least not yet. We might just lack the creativity and insight that allows us to understand how the brain gives rise to consciousness. Are you a dualist or panpsychist by chance? Do you think that consciousness is fundamental like Chalmers?

[@JohnLeBleu]

The guy is basically arguing a calculator can't be conscious while no one is arguing it could.

[@HispanicImpression]

I've watched this video until 59:40 and now stopped, because I completely lost hope for the prospect that some information might come up there, which is worth it to think through seriously to a degree, which makes me interested in doing so. There are entities in the universe with consciousness. How does that come? Evolution created them. Is this result of a creation process in principle exclusively by nature law something, which only evolution and no other entity can do? No. So, OF COURSE, the door is open to create entities with consciousness - not only for evolution. The question for us humans to begin with is just how to do it. John Searle takes up the personal view, that there never will be subjective AI systems. My light management professor, who is world famous and corrects the architectural concepts of world star architects, said, that there never will be photovoltaic panels with higher 'light use rate' than 22%. He said that in year 2010. Nowadays in research there are photovoltaic panels with 'light use rate' of 45%. This anedcote, representive for numerous other examples one could introduce here, tells you why I'm unimpressed of whatever prestigous professors saying that anything will never be.

[@grumpytroll6918]

I don't think he is saying that. In fact, If you watch the rest he clearly says that we just need to understand the brain more in order to understand how to build conscious AI.

[@Guide504]

Ego and empathy ascribed as a mechanic of survival give rise to consiousness. The question is are we individual or part of a self refining system, where consiousness is the agregated presents of us all and cannot be defined in isolation of the single human being.

[@vonkruel]

"Simulation isn't duplication". True enough as a general statement, but if you simulate what the brain does, there's no way you haven't created an intelligence. Obviously you can't feed a pizza slice to a program that simulates what the digestive system does, but that's a useless analogy here. We don't even need to simulate everything going on in the brain -- just the key mechanisms that enable intelligence. This is not _duplicating a brain_ ; it's making another machine that performs the same _intelligence-enabling processes that manipulate information_. The reason it hasn't happened yet has nothing to do with inherent limitations of what we're able to do with hardware & software. "All" we need is to understand the key processes in the brain that enable intelligence. It's a great challenge to be sure, but some of the puzzle pieces have already been assembled. Won't happen in the next decade? Probably right. Won't happen in the next 50 years? Not so sure.

[@Sovinnia65]

+vonkruel It's not that you won't have created an intelligence. It's that you won't have created thinking in the same way that a human thinks with a brain. I can add 2+2 using my brain, and so can a calculator. Simulation is not duplication just means that a calculator, for example, is not a duplication of a brain. And what the chinese room does is more similar to what a calculator does than to what a human does using a brain.

[@gormkirton6669]

+vonkruel You're assuming that consciousness and other related things are purely information-based phenomena. Just because brain can process information doesn't mean that's all there is to it. On a more practical level, "simulate" is just another word for "model". Any model is limited by your level of understanding of the subject you're modeling. Any model is distorted by your design decisions in implementation. Any model is detached from the original environment of the subject. And no model is ever perfect. The first thing a proper model of a brain would do is to simulate going insane, because it's detached from a body and has improper sensory stimuli. Have you ever considered _that_?

[@vonkruel]

Gorm Kirton I don't think a completely accurate simulation of the brain is necessary for making an intelligent machine. I'd be surprised if the first "real" AI is conscious, and capable of things like experiencing pain or having "personal ambition". Making another being just like us isn't the idea, and even if we succeeded at that questionable goal there'd be serious ethical implications to it, as you alluded to. However, just for the sake of discussion, suppose you could simulate a conscious being at least well enough that it would be convincing. Your simulation would act like a conscious being without being one. If you then subject your simulated consciousness to simulated torture, is that morally wrong? I'd say there's no problem with it, because there's no actual suffering being caused.

[@MelindaGreen]

+Flameback Smith Why does it matter if a human being has feelings? Many people don't care in the slightest if certain people suffer, and most of us even want certain people to suffer. And what about pets? They're not human but we generally don't want them to suffer. And then what about wild animals? Do you care when a dolphin suffers? How about a mosquito? These are moral questions which means they're relative to one's own position and experiences, and according to mine, suffering is suffering, and I want to reduce the amount of it in the universe even when it's not closely related to me, so I definitely include virtual beings on that spectrum. You may not.

[@MelindaGreen]

***** You've debunked nothing. When you say that life has shown that only organic stuff can suffer, what you're really saying is that all the suffering you've ever seen has been by organic life therefore it must only be true for organic life. That's the same as concluding that all sheep are white because that's all you've ever seen. That's proof of nothing other than that white sheep exist.

[@JoaoCosta-pn9im]

So many relevant questions could be asked. Most of the guys to whom the floor was given did not value the opportunity. John touched twice in the critical point in relation to AI, semantics. No one asked whether he would consider the possibility of duplicating semantics. If that would be extremely difficult, why so? What is the nature of syntax that makes it easier to replicate while semantics still seems to be an impossible job? Still, whether there would be any connection between conscience and semantics, and what was that. This would be a debate for the grown ups.

[@drq3098]

Dude, he is Prof. Dr. John Searle, not "Mister John Searle". He is formally trained at prestigiuos schools, and as much as I agree it is hard for some to follow him, he invites the audience to think and reason - and all resonating with the scientific method. If we have a 20 beellion artificial neurons, would they produce a poem or a symphony comparable with [you fill in the blanks, put your favorite poet or composer] ?!

[@Swaradigm]

Great point. It is because only human beings can transcend the intellect and be aware of it through intuition. OTOH, a robot is just a highly utilitarian, 'intelligent' piece of architecture (puppet) that has been built by another intelligence (which must be the real intelligence i.e. puppeteer). We have unfortunately forgotten the puppeteer and kicked him out because the puppet show is so engaging.

[@Kraflyn]

haven't you heard piano compositions made by computers?

[@nicholastrice8750]

@@Swaradigm you got it

[@fredriksvard2603]

DRQ There are many bs fields one can be formally trained in though.

[@JustinArRasheed]

How do we alter our own chemistry at will whether it be moving or perceiving? Yes, there is neurological science behind movement and perception, but how do we voluntarily change their realities? Will computers ever experience nervousness? Nervousness impossible without conscious and risk of failure, right? That's why there is so much we need to understand first about consciousness.

[@cyberneticqualanaut7207]

The unanswered question is how are a group of neurons different than a circuit. Does an individual neuron know or experience? Does a electrical component? or a circuit? We know a brain does.

[@BulentBasaran]

Do we? What we know is rather simple: I exist (See Descartes' nice proof). But, even that basic and indisputable knowledge is beyond formal (syntactic) processing. Brain is wonderful, but, let's not give it too much credit. It is a "computer", a very complex piece of "circuitry" indeed. But, would an artificial brain, even smarter than Deep Thought, ever care about procreation, care to have offsprings, to survive, or to make a difference? And the irony is that it is already making the world a better place..

[@Swaradigm]

Great query. We are many times not aware of a nick here and a cut there - until after a considerable amount of time sometimes, when we actually see the cut showing clotted blood. If there was no neuronal activity, how did the clot happen? So did that mean that there was no wound? But that is contradicting our observation of the wound and the clot! My point is that individual neuronal firing or not firing is not tantamount to us experiencing something or not. If it were so, then there won't be any distinction between dream states, deep sleep states, coma etc. There is a principle that is operating beyond the brain but in and through it, which is causing all these sensations. Read this: www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-blind-woman-who-switched-personalities-and-could-suddenly-see-a6746941.html and watch the movie "Split." I believe you will have some of your answers to your beautiful question.

[@TimZaman]

I have never seen anyone quote someone else's quote in their own book to make a point. Although indeed the latter part of Kurzweil's latest book is mostly centered around this previous book. This guy loves being singular.

[@MichaelOZimmermannJCDECS]

Great man, very logical, very correct... and, consciousnesses was defined sufficiently. If a computer is truly aware, that it is an artificial entity knowing it exists, then it may be described as conscious, if we do not exclude non-human entities ;-)

[@usertogo]

What is so difficult to say it in simple terms - consciousness is proportional with the closed loops the 'brain' can establish with reality so it can predict its behavior and interact with it! Of course there are dimensions of consciousness as there are depth of abstractions and types of senses with which 'reality' can be perceived. Heisenberg and Schrödinger contributed some perspectives on issues that are inherent to feedback loops and means to interact with those forms of energy that constitute reality. Indeed we are chained in platonic slave caves thinking that we perceive base levels of reality - few will ever muster the courage to go the shamanic way and discover new perspectives on the fractal!

[@Kenji314159]

I am thoroughly unimpressed. He keeps repeating himself and saying "it's simple, it's simple" when it's really not at all and there are gaping holes in his theories.

[@sferrin2]

To be fair, when you saw "Berkley" and "Philosopher" in one sentence you should have expected as much.

[@Kenji314159]

There are some philosophers I have great respect for, and Berkeley is a decent school. It just seems to me that this man doesn't like evidence and criticism, the cornerstones of science and proper research.

[@laweya]

Searle takes evidence and criticism to a level we can't yet grasp. The problem is not his methods/didactic, it's our lack of competence and repertory. Try to read his books. For me it was a craze. ''I wish there were a thousand dogs in the field''.

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

Which of his books would you first recommend?

[@laweya]

Mind, Language And Society: Philosophy In The Real World

[@misslani3409]

So if a machine reproduces by itself is the knowledge intrinsic? Basically this is knowledge vs. intelligence. Intelligence can acquire but computers do not acquire independently. Did humans create themselves? What is natural?

[@jkim3053]

Semantics is a byproduct of syntax, language models have shown that repeatedly in past few years. And also his definition of consciousness is not observer-independent because it is not fully defined. Anything that is unto interpretation is necessarily observer-dependent IMO

[@GackFinder]

Language models have shown no such thing.