Free will and consciousness - What are they?

[Cthulhu.Science]

Turing test on Tinder... I am quite sure Turin had not envisioned the test involving presenting pictures to be swiped to determine if a person was human, plus the test involved a series of questions used to purposefully determine who was the machine.

Nice cherry pick!

Should I have only included the 2011 and 2014 examples? Or should we just look away.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

It can already fool some people. It is not a completely reliable test ( particularly if the tester is not bright enough).
Chat GPT 3 is very close in spite of its common tendency to provide incorrect answers and assert false data with complete confidence.
Artificial general intelligence is another matter, that will probably take 8 to 12 more years. I am not certain. Last year I was sure it would take at least 12 years, at the current pace it may take less.

"...in spite of its common tendency to provide incorrect answers and assert false data with complete confidence."

What is more human than that?

 

[CultureCitizen]

"...in spite of its common tendency to provide incorrect answers and assert false data with complete confidence."

What is more human than that?

The confidence ... unless you are an actor or a politician... or both, ah, those are the worse.

 

[CrazyKB]

Turing test on Tinder... I am quite sure Turin had not envisioned the test involving presenting pictures to be swiped to determine if a person was human, plus the test involved a series of questions used to purposefully determine who was the machine.

I know of certain AI programs that can generate music on the fly, including creating songs that a well know artists might write. It's pretty bad at the moment. However, it got me thinking about the future of music. Most people don't care about musicianship or live performances in popular music (Rock music is pretty much dead), got me thinking about the possibility of AI generating music in the future.

 

[Swank]

Your conscious experience appears to be a simulation based on certain brain activity. Your disagreement was created before you became aware of it,, in your unconscious mind (there's good evidence to back that up), then sent up to conscious awareness (analogous to asking you if you believe that two plus two equals four). Think about that, did you ask yourself how you felt then wait for an answer, or did the thoughts and emotions 'pop into your mind' after you read my comment? As I said before, if you learned that someone you loved died, would you have to ask yourself (conscious part of you) how you should feel about that, or would you instantly feel the emotions that would accompany such an event (those thoughts and feelings created in your unconscious mind, then sent up to conscious awareness). Those feelings being based on how the brain processes data. Again, your conscious experience (thoughts) appear to be a simulation based on certain brain activity. This idea was first proposed by Freud and is backed up by modern Neuroscience.

The delay in registering the experience of consciousness doesnt mean that the decision itself was unconscious,. Otherwise even rational people would experience dissonance between what they decide and what they thought they should have decided. Clearly the process is not what we feel like it is, but all our feelings and senses run through processing and filters before it arrives in the place we feel like we live in

 

[hitmouse]

I know of certain AI programs that can generate music on the fly, including creating songs that a well know artists might write. It's pretty bad at the moment. However, it got me thinking about the future of music. Most people don't care about musicianship or live performances in popular music (Rock music is pretty much dead), got me thinking about the possibility of AI generating music in the future.

Which well-known artists?
Why do you think that rock music is pretty much dead?
Does your assertion about live music square with the fact that people actually listen to lots of it?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Which well-known artists?
Your opinions on music are debatable.

Judge by yourself how good ( or bad ) are AI-generated compositions.

Please note this is relatively new technology (about 2 years old) but not cutting-edge technology, new experimental AI's can even generate the voices ( which still have an eerie sound), and a broader variety of genres.

 

[CultureCitizen]

.

 

[CrazyKB]

Which well-known artists?
Why do you think that rock music is pretty much dead?
Does your assertion about live music square with the fact that people actually listen to lots of it?

I'll post the video I watched, I first heard of this person via Rick Beato, she discusses this topic. I get the feeling that CultureCitizen knows more than I do regarding these topics.

Rock music used to be the predominate from of 'pop music', that changed in the late 90s with Rap/Hip Hop and EDM music starting to rival Rock, in the 2000s those generas overtook Rock. By live, I mean music performed by musicians, almost all pop music is done via computers, young people are caring less and less about musicianship in music. The only band I can think of that is relatively new, rock based and can pack arenas around the world is Ghost (I love Ghost).

Name me one band post 2000s that has 'blown up' they way Rock did from the 50s up until the 2000s, you won't really find many (if any). And it's got worse with the death of physical media. Record labels aren't willing to put money into artists like they did, since the bulk of the music purchasing public (below the age of 30) stream music. The music industry only pushes what will sell, that's why Rap/Hip Hop and EDM have flooded the market.

I used to be a musician, played in many Rock/Metal bands, I witnessed first hand the decline of Rock music.

Touring costs a small fortune, especially when carrying large bands with big stage shows around the world; and with music becoming more computer oriented, with less emphasis on musicianship, I see a time where only the biggest acts, perhaps classical music, will continue to tour, with many listening to 'live' music via virtual reality.

 

[CrazyKB]

The delay in registering the experience of consciousness doesnt mean that the decision itself was unconscious,. Otherwise even rational people would experience dissonance between what they decide and what they thought they should have decided. Clearly the process is not what we feel like it is, but all our feelings and senses run through processing and filters before it arrives in the place we feel like we live in

The 'delay' has been observed in studies where a subject is asked to do a task when they feel like it (push a button for example), fMRI scans show that the brain is priming the body to do the task (push the button) 'before' the subjects feels like the want to push it. You state that feelings 'run through processing and filters before ...", if it arrives 'before' you experience it, it obviously was predetermined.

 

[Swank]

The 'delay' has been observed in studies where a subject is asked to do a task when they feel like it (push a button for example), fMRI scans show that the brain is priming the body to do the task (push the button) 'before' the subjects feels like the want to push it. You state that feelings 'run through processing and filters before ...", if it arrives 'before' you experience it, it obviously was predetermined.

That division between "you" and your brain is arbitrary. Both parts are you. If you tell yourself to push the button when you're ready, you're the one who did it.

 

[Wayne Mack]

If science can one day create a pill for sadness (which will happen) for example, how should society deal with something like that?

Musicians, storytellers, image artists have long been able to evoke sadness in people. There is a long history of people using things to enhance or mitigate emotions, what new concern does this imagined pill bring?

 

[CrazyKB]

That division between "you" and your brain is arbitrary. Both parts are you. If you tell yourself to push the button when you're ready, you're the one who did it.

What the research appears to be showing is that the decision to push the button was done before you become aware you wanted to push it, thus it appears you may not have free will. If the conscious part of you makes the choice it should be top down, you want to push the button, then you send the commands to the motor areas of the brain, then off too muscles that carry out the command. However, it appears that it's bottom up, the motor areas of the brain are already priming the subject to carry out the behavior before they feel the desire to do so.Thus, it appears that the feeling of wanting to pushing the button maybe a simulation based on certain brain activity and 'you' didn't do anything.

 

[CrazyKB]

Musicians, storytellers, image artists have long been able to evoke sadness in people. There is a long history of people using things to enhance or mitigate emotions, what new concern does this imagined pill bring?

You didn't understand my point, please reread my comment

 

[Swank]

What the research appears to be showing is that the decision to push the button was done before you become aware you wanted to push it, thus it appears you may not have free will. If the conscious part of you makes the choice it should be top down, you want to push the button, then you send the commands to the motor areas of the brain, then off too muscles that carry out the command. However, it appears that it's bottom up, the motor areas of the brain are already priming the subject to carry out the behavior before they feel the desire to do so.Thus, it appears that the feeling of wanting to pushing the button maybe a simulation based on certain brain activity and 'you' didn't do anything.

I've heard this before an follow the argument, but that argument doesn't account for what is running the motor areas of the brain. It appears that the researchers have decided that the part of your brain that has the running dialogue of consciousness IS consciousness. It might just be the court reporter.

 

[CrazyKB]

I've heard this before an follow the argument, but that argument doesn't account for what is running the motor areas of the brain. It appears that the researchers have decided that the part of your brain that has the running dialogue of consciousness IS consciousness. It might just be the court reporter.

No, it appears that the brain is doing what it wants, the desires being below the threshold of awareness (you conscious experience). The old view, made popular by Freud is that the, for example, the unconscious sends up desires, then you, the conscious part of you, makes the choice. You feel a desire to eat cake (sent up from the unconscious, the part you're not aware of), now the impulse is in the conscious part of your mind, the part that is 'you', you're on a diet, so do you choose the option that leads to instant gratification (eat the cake), or the one that leads to delayed gratification (losing the weight). The point, is that impulse was generated by the part of the brain you're not aware of and have no control over, however the choice you make (to act on it or not) is up to the 'you', the conscious part of the brain. However, research is illustrating that the impulse and the choice are predetermined, thus it only feels like you made the choice, when in fact you didn't. Another example is Blindsight, I copied this from the thread 'science fiction recommendations'. If you wish, you can go to that thread a read what I wrote, I don't feel like rehashing everything again.


"It appears that consciousness isn't necessary for predicting behavior. I'll go back to the example I gave earlier. If you realize that a car is approaching and will hit you unless you take action, one of the things you have to do is try and 'predict' what the other driver will do. Will they brake? Do they see you? Will they veer left or right in an effort not to hit you? Again, the old view was that the brain takes that all that into account, then sends possible scenarios into your consciousness where you choose which scenario is best (to avoid being hit). However, that requires a working visual system (other sensory modalities can't provide all the data necessary to fully predict possible outcomes in this case). However, someone with blindsight acts as though they can see. Those with Blindsight have a visual system that can still process visual data taken by the eyes, sending that data to the brain via the optic nerve, again the only pathways damaged are the ones responsible for your visual experience (conscious experience of sight). Thus, if a person who claims they can't see (Blindsight) however can still act in situations where visual data is required, what's the point of consciousness? What consciousness may be is a simulation created by the brain based on certain processes, akin to what happens when you dream. One idea is that consciousness was an evolutionary fluke sometime in our evolutionary past, thus it's possible that if other intelligent Aliens exist, ones capable of science and technology (things required for space travel), they may not be conscious as we are. Which is why it was so difficult to communicate with the aliens in the book Blindsight (there was no conscious interface to communicate with)."

Lastly, free will appears to be incompatible with the laws of nature. I posted this video before, I'll do it again. I'm not a physicist, thus I'll let one explain the argument.

 

[Swank]

No, it appears that the brain is doing what it wants, the desires being below the threshold of awareness (you conscious experience). The old view, made popular by Freud is that the, for example, the unconscious sends up desires, then you, the conscious part of you, makes the choice. You feel a desire to eat cake (sent up from the unconscious, the part you're not aware of), now the impulse is in the conscious part of your mind, the part that is 'you', you're on a diet, so do you choose the option that leads to instant gratification (eat the cake), or the one that leads to delayed gratification (losing the weight). The point, is that impulse was generated by the part of the brain you're not aware of and have no control over, however the choice you make (to act on it or not) is up to the 'you', the conscious part of the brain. However, research is illustrating that the impulse and the choice are predetermined, thus it only feels like you made the choice, when in fact you didn't. Another example is Blindsight, I copied this from the thread 'science fiction recommendations'. If you wish, you can go to that thread a read what I wrote, I don't feel like rehashing everything again.


"It appears that consciousness isn't necessary for predicting behavior. I'll go back to the example I gave earlier. If you realize that a car is approaching and will hit you unless you take action, one of the things you have to do is try and 'predict' what the other driver will do. Will they brake? Do they see you? Will they veer left or right in an effort not to hit you? Again, the old view was that the brain takes that all that into account, then sends possible scenarios into your consciousness where you choose which scenario is best (to avoid being hit). However, that requires a working visual system (other sensory modalities can't provide all the data necessary to fully predict possible outcomes in this case). However, someone with blindsight acts as though they can see. Those with Blindsight have a visual system that can still process visual data taken by the eyes, sending that data to the brain via the optic nerve, again the only pathways damaged are the ones responsible for your visual experience (conscious experience of sight). Thus, if a person who claims they can't see (Blindsight) however can still act in situations where visual data is required, what's the point of consciousness? What consciousness may be is a simulation created by the brain based on certain processes, akin to what happens when you dream. One idea is that consciousness was an evolutionary fluke sometime in our evolutionary past, thus it's possible that if other intelligent Aliens exist, ones capable of science and technology (things required for space travel), they may not be conscious as we are. Which is why it was so difficult to communicate with the aliens in the book Blindsight (there was no conscious interface to communicate with)."

Lastly, free will appears to be incompatible with the laws of nature. I posted this video before, I'll do it again. I'm not a physicist, thus I'll let one explain the argument.

Free will is a semantic notion, not a thing with a location in reality. Like most philosophy.

Our brains act in totality. We don't get to cherry pick which parts are "me" and which parts are machinery. It's all Me. And I make all sorts of decisions that can't be predicted or are inconsistent with what my consciousness desires.

If there is some sort of non-free will decision generator in the brain - where is it and what is driving it?

 

[LordOfWizards]

I know of certain AI programs that can generate music on the fly, including creating songs that a well know artists might write. It's pretty bad at the moment. However, it got me thinking about the future of music. Most people don't care about musicianship or live performances in popular music (Rock music is pretty much dead), got me thinking about the possibility of AI generating music in the future.

Check this out: https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/584344/#post-2614061

Rick Beato breaks down AI's intrusion into music.

 

[CrazyKB]

Free will is a semantic notion, not a thing with a location in reality. Like most philosophy.

Our brains act in totality. We don't get to cherry pick which parts are "me" and which parts are machinery. It's all Me. And I make all sorts of decisions that can't be predicted or are inconsistent with what my consciousness desires.

If there is some sort of non-free will decision generator in the brain - where is it and what is driving it?

If the conscious part of you doesn't make the decision, then we're just biological machines interacting with our environment, and the conscious experiences we have regarding making choices in our lives is an illusion (a simulation). Free will is based on the conscious parts of ourselves, the concept that religions have called the soul, however it appears it maybe nothing more than an illusion. But then again, everything you experience is a simulation. In fact, you can't even prove 'now' since for you it doesn't exist, only the past.

 

[Swank]

If the conscious part of you doesn't make the decision, then we're just biological machines interacting with our environment, and the conscious experiences we have regarding making choices in our lives is an illusion (a simulation). Free will is based on the conscious parts of ourselves, the concept that religions have called the soul, however it appears it maybe nothing more than an illusion. But then again, everything you experience is a simulation. In fact, you can't even prove 'now' since for you it doesn't exist, only the past.

Free will is a concept, not a thing. That concept doesn't own a piece of consciousness just because we hung two words together.

Consciousness is whatever we decide it is. It doesn't need to stop at the borders of whatever we feel like it is. If some parts of consciousness happen without leaving a record in the experiential part of our brains, what makes that not-conscious? That's like saying we are actually blind because we don't have conscious control over how the retina processes images.