Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 12

Good work
This article is looking impressively well balanced. Good work! Loxley 13:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi's edit
As I understand it, Tkorrovi's edit tends to emphasise a rigorous approach of the matter, which I think is interesting. Of course, it not incompatible with historical perspectives (by the way, these could be expanded a little bit, it's a miserable now :P) but I think that they are a valuable contribution. When I read "is consciousness possessed by man-made devices", I go "yeah but what is counsciousness ?"; reading something which addresses the difficulties of defining cousciousness, I find it both richer and closer to what I have seen of the state of the art in the field (Zeleznikar). Rama 14:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's the first sentence in an encyclopedia article. It's for people who have never heard the term artificial consciousness before in their lives and want to know what it is. If you don't know what consciousness is, there's a wikilink right there to click to see the article Consciousness. We needn't attempt a rigorous philosophical definition in the first sentence. -- Schaefer 17:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, but on the other hand, Artificial counsciousness is a scientific subject, so it is not irrevelant to state what is problematic -- in this case, the very definition of "counsciousness". Also, the link to the article Consciousness is half-misleading: anyone "knows" what counsciousness is, yet no practical definition has been produced; that is, "counsciousness" here has a very precise and particular meaning, which is yet to be determined.
 * I also point the first sentance of Consciousness: "Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.": here we have several ill-defined word ("subjectivity", "self-awareness", "sentience", "sapience", "percieve"), which in turn point to other articles which all rely on similary vague words, or constitute circular definitions. Tkorrovi's sentence does not attempt to provide a definition, it just says that the current hot issue is to provide one; I think that this a healthy way to begin, since it states the current situation on the topic, and does not suggest that such a precise, rigourous and applicable definition already exists. Rama 18:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Self preservation seems to be missing
I think a point Freud made about the behavior of human males teaches to the subject of artificial consciousness: After the desire for self preservation, men are motivated by the sex drive and the desire to be great.

The key here, is “self preservation.” (To Freud’s points, I would have added “desire for more leisure time” and I think one would have all the key attributes comprising a complex mix of behaviors.)

I am not expert on this subject but have pondered the question of artificial consciousness for years and was rather struck by how this article makes no mention of the “fear of death” or “desire for self preservation.” I don’t think any machine can be said to be conscious unless it exhibits both A) the desire for self preservation, and B) a qualitatively or quantitatively observable panic reaction—or the machine-equivalent of it—when faced with imminent doom.

Surely there are RSs out there that speak to this issue and which can be added to this article. Greg L (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are confident "there are RSs out there that speak to this issue" then you should be able to locate them. I don't see much difference between a fear of death and a desire for self-preservation. Some people are not panicked by the thought of death, so why should the machine panic? Some humans are adjusted to the prospect of death, are not motivated just by sex, and lack the American "desire to be great" (did Freud really support that?). So why must the machine be programmed to indulge in narcissistic self-obsessed dramas? --Epipelagic (talk)


 * You’re over-thinking the issue and have a Euro-snot attitude that’s sort of a buzz-kill. So never mind. Greg L (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)