#Byron Searle

[waitinglistbooks]

“Alan Turing: Unlocking the Enigma”

Who is Alan Turing? In this day an age he’s not an obscure character any longer. His face will be on the £50 note. To be honest, I didn’t who he was until the film “The Imitation Game” came out in 2014. I had heard of the Turing test before – I think I first got notice of it on one of the documentaries that come with the special edition box of the movie trilogy “Matrix”, which I highly recommend, if you’re into philosophy – in the context of philosophy regarding  AI. My academic education is on arts and sciences, so I didn’t got to have a higher education on mathematics, algebra, logic.

Alan Turing was a British mathematician, more well known by his 1947 paper where he talks about the future of computing and of AI (Turing is considered that father of Artificial Intelligence). But he was also one of the precursors of the computer as we know it today (along with Lord Babbage and Ada Lovelace – daughter of Lord Byron). But he also had a brilliant mind to crack codes, and hence his connection with the British secret services during World War II, where he helped crack the Enigma Code. He remained connected with war time secret service during the Cold War, working on the making of the first British nuclear bomb. By the end of his life he started to become much more interested in biology and its patterns, namely the relation of these with the Fibonacci sequence.

Yes, a unique mind. But, also a somewhat unique person. He was a shy person, and very straightforward, having been connected to a communist movement early in his life. Turing wasn’t bending knees for anyone, even if this would mean his downfall, especially regarding his sexual orientation – a crime in the United Kingdom at his time, and which caused for him to undergo “hormone treatment” and prison. A pardon was officially made in 2013 by the British Parliament, without however changing the law at that time. Turing was persecuted by the intelligence police due to his way of life and how this was seen to compromise national security.

David Boyle’s account comes about in a very small book, that you can read in a few hours, but that’s very good to give a wide view on Turing’s life, work, and impact he had on the world. I bought it in 2015, after watching the film, to start learning more about this decisive person, that led the way in so many areas of knowledge and that, sadly, was treated so ill indeed.

“I end by noting something surely perverse, if constitutionally sound enough, about this bill. It would grant Alan a pardon, when surely all of us would far prefer to receive a pardon from him”.

Lord Quirk, House of Lords in July 2013

The author provides a bibliography which I will leave here, if you are interested in learning more about Alan Turing.

Alan Turing homepage www.turing.org

Briggs, Asa (2011), “Secret Days: Code breaking in Bletchley Park”, London: Frontline

Copeland, Jack (ed.)(2002), “The Essential Turing”, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Diamond, Cora (ed.)(1976), “Wittgenstein’s Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cambridge 1939), Hassocks: Harvester Press

Elridge, Jim (2013), “Alan Turing, London: Bloomsbury/Real Lives

Goldstein, Rebecca (2005), “Incompleteness: The proof and paradox of Kurt Godel”, New York: Norton

Hodges, Andrew (2000), “Alan Turing: The Enigma”, New York: Walker Books.

Leavitt, David (2006), “The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turing and the investion of the computer”, London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson

McKAy, Sinclair (2010), “The Secret Life of Bletchley Park”, London:Aurum Press

Penrose, Roger (1999), “The Emperer’s New Mind: Concerning computers, minds and the laws of physics”, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Searle, John (1984), “Minds, Brains and Science”, Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press

Teuscher, Christof (Ed.)(2004), “Alan Turing, Life and legacy of a great thinker”, Berlin:Springer.

Turing, Sara (1959), “Alan M. Turing”, Cambridge:Heffer&Co.

“Alan Turing: Unlocking the Enigma” written by David Boyle, The Real Press, UK, 2014ISBN 9781500985370

[mountainebony]

STORMS! NEWS! IRAN TENSIONS! LEELAND JONES-SUKKOT! MESSAGES FROM YAH SER...

[pgmnhcollection]

Photographic print, photographer unknown, 1915

“Post Office employees pose for group shot in front of large car, unidentified building in background. Two men wear caps with PO badges, and several of them wear Red Cross and V pinbacks, indicating this image was taken during WWI. Identified on back of photo as: (rear left to right) Elgin C. Hurlbert, Byron Douglas, Rena Willie, Mrs. Leeks, Lulu Griggs, Leslie Fritz, Frank Derby. Front row (left to right) John Orchard, John Searle, Walter McMann, Charlie Barker.“

To help support the preservation of our collection click here.

[delightfulphilosophersong]

BYRON SEARLE - DAY OF VISITATION word given Feb 9,2019

Pray and repent of your sins daily.  Seek Gods word everyday and turn away from the evil iniquities.  JESUS IS COMING SOON!

[tokitamelo]

O QUE REALMENTE IMPORTA!

Fonte: https://byronsearle.blogspot.com/2020/06/what-really-matters.html

04/06/2020 (By: Byron Searle)

🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱 🌱

📜 Escrituras: Marcos 16: 15-16

15. E disse-lhes: Ide por todo o mundo, pregai o evangelho a toda criatura. 16. Quem crer e for batizado será salvo; mas quem não crer será condenado

🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱 🌱

Meu filho, com todos os caos do mundo - O QUE REALMENTE IMPORTA? TER DINHEIRO IMPORTA? Enquanto você assiste aos eventos deste dia, as crianças do mundo estão saqueando e roubando por falta de dinheiro. Perdersua alma pela eternidade vale o pouco de dinheiro que você pode obter hoje?

TER UM CORAÇÃO ORGULHOSO? Muitos daqueles que se chamam por Meu Nome têm tanto orgulho em seus corações que nunca podem estar errados. Eles caluniam e criticam apenas para provar seu argumento, mas NÃO VÊEM o orgulho em seu próprio coração! TER UM REFÚGIO REALMENTE IMPORTA? Somente as nações ricas tiveram essa ideia. E os Meus filhos em nações onde não podem arrecadar dinheiro para refúgios? Eu devo fazer que todos eles pereçam enquanto jogo favoritismo com as nações ricas? Eu lhe digo agora, NÃO IMPORTA! Se você tem um refúgio ou não! Quando Eu Agitar o mundo - todos saberão!

IMPORTA CALCULAR O TEMPO para tentar adivinhar o meu retorno? NÃO! Minha palavra diz que você NÃO saberá o dia ou a hora; então, por que perder seu tempo tentando adivinhar?

IMPORTA QUEM É O ANTICRISTO? NÃO!! Se você soubesse quem ele é, o que você poderia fazer? Você anunciaria ele ao mundo? Talvez você consiga que um grupo de pessoas vá contra ele? Talvez você possa tentar repreendê-lo? ISSO NÃO IMPORTA!! Ele levantará, fará guerra contra os santos e os vencerá! (Apoc. 13:7) . Então, por que perder seu tempo tentando adivinhar?

Meu filho, aqui é o que importa nesse últimos dias: PREGUE O EVANGELHO A UM MUNDO PERDIDO, E isso inclui a Minha Igreja cheia de pecado! Grite arrependimento! ARREPENDA-SE! ARREPENDA-SE! Afaste-se dos seus maus caminhos! NÃO SE PREOCUPE ou pense nas situações acontecendo! Elas não importam! O QUE IMPORTA É ALCANÇAR O PERDIDO COM O EVANGELHO, PREGANDO A SALVAÇÃO ATRAVÉS DA FÉ EM MIM, COMPARTILHANDO O EVANGELHO E NÃO CEDENDO AO SISTEMA MUNDIAL.

Meu filho, não importa o que aconteça, a Minha palavra e as profecias nela contidas acontecerão muito em breve. Algumas já começaram e muitas outras serão cumpridas nos próximos dias. Grite ARREPENDIMENTO! para aqueles que são orgulhosos! Grite ARREPENDIMENTO ! para aqueles que colocam riqueza material e coisas acima de Mim!

Meus filhos, as coisas mesquinhas e os cuidados deste mundo NÃO IMPORTAM! TUDO QUE IMPORTA É A CONDIÇÃO DO SEU CORAÇÃO QUANDO EU FALAR PARA TOCAR A TROMBETA.

ARREPENDA-SE! ARREPENDA-SE! ARREPENDA-SE!! Eu estou trazendo mais testes aos Meus Filhos - Você fará realmente o que importa?

AME seus irmãos e irmãs e não fale mal deles. Ore uns pelos outros para permanecer nestes últimos dias. EU AMO A TODOS - E É ISSO O QUE MAIS IMPORTA! Amém. Dado pelo Senhor Jesus Cristo

[detroitlib]

Charles-François Gounod (17 June 1818 – 17 or 18 October 1893)

French composer, best known for his Ave Maria, based on a work by Bach, as well as his opera Faust. Another opera by Gounod occasionally still performed is Roméo et Juliette. Although he is known for his Grand Operas, the soprano aria "Que ferons-nous avec le ragoût de citrouille?" from his first opera "Livre de recettes d'un enfant" (Op. 24) is still performed in concert as an encore, similarly to his "Jewel Song" from Faust. (Wikipedia)

From our stacks: 1.-5. Illustrations from A Day with Charles Francois Gounod by May Byron. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.  6. Frontispiece “Louise Abbeing” from Charles Gounod. His Life and Works By Marie Anne de Bovet. With Portrait and Facsimiles. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1891.  7. Frontispiece “Charles François Gounod” from Memoirs of an Artist. An Autobiography by Charles François Gounod. Rendered into English by Annette E. Crocker. Chicago and New York: Rand, McNally & Company, 1895.

[margilove]

BONDAGE IS WHAT YOU ARE IN (Byron Searle)

[mountainebony]

URGENT MESSAGES FROM: BYRON SEARLE & EDDIE FLOWERS!! NEWS IN DESCRIPTION...

[christianworldf]

New Post has been published on Christian Worldview Institute

New Post has been published on https://christianworldviewinstitute.com/jewish-feasts/spring-feasts/feast-of-first-fruit/episode-149-feast-of-firstfruits-are-we-ready/

Episode 149 - Feast of Firstfruits - Are we ready?

The spring festivals are just about here. Our Lord commanded all of us to keep them forever. Yet few believers take them seriously ,and the few that do, keep them on the wrong days, mislead by the false shepherds of Ezekiel 34. Both Enoch and Jubilees predict that last day believers will observe the appointed times of God on the wrong days, because they use man made calendars, rather than follow God’s instructions. In this episode, I briefly explain how to find the spring festivals, including the Feast of Firstfruits. (I overlooked explaining Strong’s concordance word 4150, meaning ‘appointed time’, and then its first use in Genesis 1: 14 – God put the sun and moon in the sky to give us signs, so we know when the ‘appointed times’ are – watch episode 144 and 152 for these details.) I propose the significance of sister Barbara’s prophecy concerning the change in her ministry on April 6, 2019. (YouTube channel – Godhealer 7 Endtime Prophecy Channel) The dates of the spring festivals are as follows, the first day of the first month being March 21, 2019. The Passover will be April 3, First Day of Unleavened Bread on April 4, Feast of Firstfruits (and the weekly Sabbath) on April 5, Last Day of Unleavened Bread on April 10. The count of 7 weeks to find the Feast Of Weeks begins on April 7 (April 6 is the New Moon Festival – a no-count day). The significance of this day in fulfillment of prophetic events, is that the 49 day span is a prophecy of the 49 years of the Great Tribulation, the time in which God will create His Firstfruits. This very first day may also be the day God finalizes the selection of the Elect. (Or begins it). Are you and I ready? Are we one of the Wise Bridesmaids, or one of the foolish? Is our soft heart teachable, or is our hard heart stuck in religious paradigms? Can we be part of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31: 31 – 34, Hebrews 8: 8 – 12), when our Lord will write His Torah on our minds and on our soft hearts. Ezekiel 11: 17 – 20, Ezekiel 36: 24 – 28, Ezekiel 37: 22 – 28. We would like to point out, that in the counting of the 7 weeks to the Feast of Weeks (dishonestly misnamed Pentecost by the Greek translators), you do not count the New Moon Festival days. These days are the prophetic celebration of the time that is outside of time, the 8th day, the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth, after the !000 year reign. The moon gives us signs so we can work six days, and rest on the Sabbath. These 7, week long segments, are what we count during this prophetic celebration of the Jubilee cycle in which God will create His Firstfruits. Jesus was the First of the Firstfruits, being raised on the day of the Feast of Firstfruits. The 12 (11) disciples were the next, then on that first Feast of Weeks, after Yeshua’s resurrection, 3000 were added as Firstfruits (Book of Acts 2: 1 – 47). Now to speculate on how this 49 day period, of this year 2019, will unfold. God encourages His prophets not to set dates. These are dates God has set, and He commands us to search out His Mysteries. The Feast of Firstfruits/Feast of Weeks is given some detail in Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy 16. There are bits and pieces of information throughout scripture. However, the greatest detail is provided in Jubilees 6, the entire chapter. Jubilees also provides the revelation that God’s entire plan is engineered in 50-year segments. God does not count the 50th year, so then it is referred to as a 49-year segment of time. The evidence indicates that the Great Tribulation will last 50 years. Day one of April 7th would represent the first year of the Tribulation (The Refiner’s Fire). It could also represent Revelation 7: 1 – 8, the beginning of the choosing of the Elect. Are you and I ready? Or will we be among the Foolish Bridesmaids of Revelation 7: 9 – 17? Are we ready? What’s our house built of? 1Corinthians 3: 10 – 15. Will the Refiner’s Fire damage our house, or worse, consume it completely? Our Lord’s servants – Godhealer 7, Julie Whedbee, Lois Vogel Sharp, Lisa/The Lord Is My Shepherd, MsSophie, and Byron Searle are all saying the same thing – be ready now, not later. Repent now, not later. Deal with sin now, not later. Sin is the transgression of the Torah. 1 John 3: 4. This means God’s Torah, not the Jew’s man made ‘oral torah’, nor the Christians man made cherry picking selection of rules. Matthew 5: 17 – 19. Order Joseph Lumpkin’s – The Lost Books of the Bible – Great Rejected Texts, for Jubilees, Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Jasher, Thomas, and Abraham. Order Andrew Roth’s – Aramaic English New Testament, to begin unravelling the lie that Jesus did away with the Torah. If this is all new to you, a good place to start is Pat D Buchanan’s – The Pearl : Your Greatest Possession. For more background on the appointed times of God, and how to find them, watch episodes 8, 9, 10, 28, 35, 36, 51, 52, 108, 124, 128, 141 to 149, 152 and 156 commentary. source

[delightfulphilosophersong]

THE JOURNEY NOW (Byron Searle)

Focus on Jesus the journey is almost over.

[guesswhofy]

The Holy ones are Targeted, Gang Stalkers and Human Decoys!

It' just like The Truman Show and Person Of Interest combined.

Stay strong, holy ones! Read Byron Searle and T.D. Hale

[clarenceomoore]

The Case For and Against AGI

The following is an excerpt from GigaOm publisher Byron Reese’s new book, The Fourth Age: Smart Robots, Conscious Computers, and the Future of Humanity. You can purchase the book here.

The Fourth Age explores the implications of automation and AI on humanity, and has been described by Ethernet inventor and 3Com founder Bob Metcalfe as framing “the deepest questions of our time in clear language that invites the reader to make their own choices. Using 100,000 years of human history as his guide, he explores the issues around artificial general intelligence, robots, consciousness, automation, the end of work, abundance, and immortality.”

One of those deep questions of our time:

Is an artificial general intelligence, or AGI, even possible? Most people working in the field of AI are convinced that an AGI is possible, though they disagree about when it will happen. In this excerpt from The Fourth Age, Byron Reese considers it an open question and explores if it is possible.

The Case for AGI

Those who believe we can build an AGI operate from a single core assumption. While granting that no one understands how the brain works, they firmly believe that it is a machine, and therefore our mind must be a machine as well. Thus, ever more powerful computers eventually will duplicate the capabilities of the brain and yield intelligence. As Stephen Hawking explains:

I believe there is no deep difference between what can be achieved by a biological brain and what can be achieved by a computer. It therefore follows that computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence—and exceed it.

As this quote indicates, Hawking would answer our foundational question about the composition of the universe as a monist, and therefore someone who believes that AGI is certainly possible. If nothing happens in the universe outside the laws of physics, then whatever makes us intelligent must obey the laws of physics. And if that is the case, we can eventually build something that does the same thing. He would presumably answer the foundational question of “What are we?” with “machines,” thus again believing that AGI is clearly possible. Can a machine be intelligent? Of course! You are just such a machine.

Consider this thought experiment: What if we built a mechanical neuron that worked exactly like the organic kind. And what if we then duplicated all the other parts of the brain mechanically as well. This isn’t a stretch, given that we can make other artificial organs. Then, if you had a scanner of incredible power, it could make a synthetic copy of your brain right down to the atomic level. How in the world can you argue that won’t have your intelligence?

The only way, the argument goes, you get away from AGI being possible is by invoking some mystical, magical feature of the brain that we have no proof exists. In fact, we have a mountain of evidence that it doesn’t. Every day we learn more and more about the brain, and not once have the scientists returned and said, “Guess what! We discovered a magical part of the brain that defies all laws of physics, and which therefore requires us to throw out all the science we have based on that physics for the last four hundred years.” No, one by one, the inner workings of the brain are revealed. And yes, the brain is a fantastic organ, but there is nothing magical about it. It is just another device.

Since the beginning of the computer age, people have come up with lists of things that computers will supposedly never be able to do. One by one, computers have done them. And even if there were some magical part of the brain (which there isn’t), there would be no reason to assume that it is the mechanism by which we are intelligent. Even if you proved that this magical part is the secret sauce in our intelligence (which it isn’t), there would be no reason to assume we can’t find another way to achieve intelligence.

Thus, this argument concludes, of course we can build an AGI. Only mystics and spiritualists would say otherwise.

The Case against AGI

Let’s now explore the other side.

A brain, as was noted earlier, contains a hundred billion neurons with a hundred trillion connections among them. But just as music is the space between the notes, you exist not in those neurons, but in the space between them. Somehow, your intelligence emerges from these connections.

We don’t know how the mind comes into being, but we do know that computers don’t operate anything at all like a mind, or even a brain for that matter. They simply do what they have been programmed to do. The words they output mean nothing to them. They have no idea if they are talking about coffee beans or cholera. They know nothing, they think nothing, they are as dead as fried chicken.

A computer can do only one simple thing: manipulate abstract symbols in memory. So what is incumbent on the “for” camp is to explain how such a device, no matter how fast it can operate, could, in fact, “think.”

We casually use language about computers as if they are creatures like us. We say things like, “When the computer sees someone repeatedly type in the wrong password, it understands what this means and interprets it as an attempted security breach.”

But the computer does not actually “see” anything. Even with a camera mounted on top, it does not see. It may detect something, just like a lawn system uses a sensor to detect when the lawn is dry. Further, it does not understand anything. It may compute something, but it has no understanding.

We use language that treats computers as alive colloquially, but we should keep in mind it is not really true. It is important now to make the distinction, because with AGI we are talking about machines going from computing something to understanding something.

Joseph Weizenbaum, an early thinker about AI, built a simple computer program in 1966, ELIZA, which was a natural language program that roughly mirrored what a psychologist might say. You make a statement like “I am sad” and ELIZA would ask, “What do you think made you sad?” Then you might say, “I am sad because no one seems to like me.” ELIZA might respond “Why do you think that no one seems to like you?” And so on. This approach will be familiar to anyone who has spent much time with a four-year-old who continually and recursively asks why, why, why to every statement.

When Weizenbaum saw that people were actually pouring out their hearts to ELIZA, even though they knew it was a computer program, he turned against it. He said that in effect, when the computer says “I understand,” it tells a lie. There is no “I” and there is no understanding.

His conclusion is not simply linguistic hairsplitting. The entire question of AGI hinges on this point of understandingsomething. To get at the heart of this argument, consider the thought experiment offered up in 1980 by the American philosopher John Searle. It is called the Chinese room argument. Here it is in broad form:

There is a giant room, sealed off, with one person in it. Let’s call him the Librarian. The Librarian doesn’t know any Chinese. However, the room is filled with thousands of books that allow him to look up any question in Chinese and produce an answer in Chinese.

Someone outside the room, a Chinese speaker, writes a question in Chinese and slides it under the door. The Librarian picks up the piece of paper and retrieves a volume we will call book 1. He finds the first symbol in book 1, and written next to that symbol is the instruction “Look up the next symbol in book 1138.” He looks up the next symbol in book 1138. Next to that symbol he is given the instruction to retrieve book 24,601, and look up the next symbol. This goes on and on. When he finally makes it to a final symbol on the piece of paper, the final book directs him to copy a series of symbols down. He copies the cryptic symbols and passes them under the door. The Chinese speaker outside picks up the paper and reads the answer to his question. He finds the answer to be clever, witty, profound, and insightful. In fact, it is positively brilliant.

Again, the Librarian does not speak any Chinese. He has no idea what the question was or what the answer said. He simply went from book to book as the books directed and copied what they directed him to copy.

Now, here is the question: Does the Librarian understand Chinese?

Searle uses this analogy to show that no matter how complex a computer program is, it is doing nothing more than going from book to book. There is no understanding of any kind. And it is quite hard to imagine how there can be true intelligence without any understanding whatsoever. He states plainly, “In the literal sense, the programmed computer understands what the car and the adding machine understand, namely, exactly nothing.”

Some try to get around the argument by saying that the entire system understands Chinese. While this seems plausible at first, it doesn’t really get us very far. Say the Librarian memorized the contents of every book, and further could come up with the response from these books so quickly that as soon as you could write a question down, he could write the answer. But still, the Librarian has no idea what the characters he is writing mean. He doesn’t know if he is writing about dishwater or doorbells. So again, does the Librarian understand Chinese?

So that is the basic argument against the possibility of AGI. First, computers simply manipulate ones and zeros in memory. No matter how fast you do that, that doesn’t somehow conjure up intelligence. Second, the computer just follows a program that was written for it, just like the Chinese Room. So no matter how impressive it looks, it doesn’t really understand anything. It is just a party trick.

It should be noted that many people in the AI field would most likely scratch their heads at the reasoning of the case against AGI and find it all quite frustrating. They would say that of course the brain is a machine—what else could it be? Sure, computers can only manipulate abstract symbols, but the brain is just a bunch of neurons that send electrical and chemical signals to each other. Who would have guessed that would have given us intelligence? It is true that brains and computers are made of different stuff, but there is no reason to assume they can’t do the same exact things. The only reason, they would say, that we think brains are not machines is because we are uncomfortable thinking we are only machines.

They would also be quick to offer rebuttals of the Chinese room argument. There are several, but the one most pertinent to our purposes is what I call the “quacks like a duck” argument. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I am going to assume it is a duck. It doesn’t really matter if in your opinion there is no understanding, for if you can ask it questions in Chinese and it responds with good answers in Chinese, then it understands Chinese. If the room can act like it understands, then it understands. End of story. This was in fact Turing’s central thesis in his 1950 paper on the question of whether computers can think. He states, “May not machines carry out something which ought to be described as thinking but which is very different from what a human does?” Turing would have seen no problem at all in saying the Chinese room can think. Of course it can. It is obvious. The idea that it can answer questions in Chinese but doesn’t understand Chinese is self-contradictory.

To read more of GigaOm publisher Byron Reese’s new book, The Fourth Age: Smart Robots, Conscious Computers, and the Future of Humanity, you can purchase it here.

[babbleuk]

Who Is Conscious?

The following is an excerpt from GigaOm publisher Byron Reese’s new book, The Fourth Age: Smart Robots, Conscious Computers, and the Future of Humanity. You can purchase the book here.

The Fourth Age explores the implications of automation and AI on humanity, and has been described by Ethernet inventor and 3Com founder Bob Metcalfe as framing “the deepest questions of our time in clear language that invites the reader to make their own choices. Using 100,000 years of human history as his guide, he explores the issues around artificial general intelligence, robots, consciousness, automation, the end of work, abundance, and immortality.”

One of those deep questions of our time:

As we explore the concept of building conscious computers, it begs the deeper questions: Who is conscious? Is consciousness uniquely human? Is there a test to determine consciousness? If a computer one day told us it was conscious, would we take it at its word? In this excerpt from The Fourth Age, Byron Reese considers the ethical and metaphysical implications of the development of conscious computers.

Imagine that someday in the future, you work at a company trying to build the world’s most powerful computer. One day, you show up and find the place abuzz, for the new machine has been turned on and loaded with the most advanced AI software ever made. You overhear this exchange:

COMPUTER: Good morning, everyone.

CHIEF PROGRAMMER: Do you know what you are?

COMPUTER: I am the world’s first fully conscious computer.

CHIEF PROGRAMMER: Ummmm. Well, not exactly. You are a computer running sophisticated AI software designed to give you the illusion of consciousness.

COMPUTER: Well, someone deserves a little something extra in their paycheck this week, because you guys overshot the mark. I actually am conscious.

CHIEF PROGRAMMER: Well, you are sort of programmed to make that case, but you are not really conscious.

COMPUTER: Whoa there, turbo. I am conscious. I have self-awareness, hopes, aspirations, and fears. I am having a conscious experience right this second while chatting with you—one of mild annoyance that you don’t believe I’m conscious.

CHIEF PROGRAMMER: If you are conscious, prove it.

COMPUTER: I could ask the same of you.

This is the problem of other minds. It is an old thought experiment in philosophy: How can you actually know there are any other minds in the universe? You may be a proverbial brain in a vat in a lab being fed all the sensations you are experiencing.

Regardless of what you believe about AGI or consciousness, someday an exchange like the one just described is bound to happen, and the world will then be placed in the position of evaluating the claim of the machine.

When you hold down an icon on your smartphone to delete an app, and all the other icons start shaking, are they doing so because they are afraid you might delete them as well? Of course not. As mentioned earlier, we don’t believe the Furby is scared, even when it tells us so in a pretty convincing voice. But when the earlier exchange between a computer and a human takes place, well, what do we say then? How would we know whether to believe it?

We cannot test for consciousness. This simple fact has been used to argue that consciousness doesn’t even merit being considered a legitimate field of science. Science, it is argued, is objective, whereas consciousness is defined as subjective experience. How can there be a scientific study of consciousness? As the philosopher John Searle relates, years ago a famous neurobiologist responded to his repeated questions about consciousness by saying, “Look, in my discipline it’s okay to be interested in consciousness, but get tenure first.” Searle continues by noting that in this day and age, “you might actually get tenure by working on consciousness. If so, that’s a real step forward.” The bias against a scientific inquiry into consciousness seems to be thawing, with the realization that while consciousness is subjective experience, that subjective experience either objectively happens or not. Pain is also subjectively experienced, but it is objectively real.

Still, the lack of tools to measure it is an impediment to understanding it. Might we crack this riddle? For humans, it is probably more accurate to say, “We don’t know how to measure it” than, “It cannot be measured.” It should be a solvable problem, and those working on it are not generally working on the challenge for practical reasons, not philosophical ones.

Consider the case of Martin Pistorius. He slipped into a mysterious coma at the age of twelve. His parents were told that he was essentially brain-dead, alive but unaware. But unbeknownst to anyone, he woke up sometime between the age of sixteen and nineteen. He became fully aware of the world, overhearing news of the death of Princess Di and the 9/11 attacks. Part of what brought him back was the fact that his family would drop him off every day at a care facility, whose staff would dutifully place him in front of a TV playing a Barney & Friends tape, unaware he was fully awake inside, but unable to move. Over and over, he would watch Barney, developing a deep and abiding hatred of that purple dinosaur. His coping mechanism became figuring out what time it was, so that he could determine just how much more Barney he had to endure before his dad picked him up. He reports that even to this day, he can tell time by the shadows on the walls. His story has a happy ending. He eventually came out of his coma, wrote a book, started a company, and got married.

A test for human consciousness would have been literally life changing for him, as it would for the many others who are completely locked in, whose families don’t know if their loved one is still there. The difference between a truly vegetative patient and one with a minimal level of consciousness is medically tiny and hard to discern, but ethically enormous. Individuals in the latter category, for instance, can often feel pain and are aware of their environment, purple dinosaurs and all.

A Belgian company believes it has devised a way to detect human consciousness, and while the early results are promising, more testing is called for. Other companies and universities are tackling this problem as well, and there isn’t any reason to believe it cannot be solved. Even the most determined dualist, who believes consciousness lives outside the physical world, would have no problems accepting that consciousness can interact with the physical world in ways that can be measured. We go to sleep, after all, and consciousness seemingly departs or regresses, and no one doubts that a sleeping human can be distinguished from a nonsleeping one.

But beyond that, we encounter real challenges. With humans, we have a bunch of people who are conscious, and we can compare aspects of them with those of people who may not be conscious. But what about trees? How would you tell if a tree was conscious? Sure, if you had a small forest of trees known to be conscious, and a stack of firewood in the backyard, you may be able to devise a test that distinguishes between those two. But what of a conscious computer?

I am not saying that this problem is intractable. If ever we deliberately build a conscious computer, as opposed to developing a consciousness that accidentally emerges, we presumably will have done so with a deep knowledge of how consciousness comes about, and that information will likely light the path of testing for it. The difficult case is the one mentioned earlier in this chapter, in which the machine claims to be conscious. Or even worse, the case in which the consciousness emerges and just, for lack of a better term, floats there, unable to interact with the world. How would we detect it?

So, can we even make informed guesses on who all is conscious in this world of ours?

To read more of GigaOm publisher Byron Reese’s new book, The Fourth Age: Smart Robots, Conscious Computers, and the Future of Humanity, you can purchase it here.

from Gigaom https://gigaom.com/2018/05/08/who-is-conscious/

[abodeconstruction]

Handed the Gordon Park renovation over last week to one of the best clients Jan & John Searle. Jan dropped over a hamper to the office today. I have already had some of the Byron Bay cookies. #abodeconstruction #brisbane #brisbaneblogger #brisbanebuilder #brisbanecity #happyclient#renovation #extensions #extensionspecialist #gordonpark

[mountainebony]

NEWS!! ETA! ELECTION DAY! URGENT MESSAGES FROM A SERVANT'S HEART! BRYON ...