Recently I described a possible alternative Turing test that looks for certain non-person like behavior. I’d like to try it out and see if it is robust and has any value.
Here is some data represented in an ordinary control chart.
It’s easy to see there is a recognizable pattern here. The line follows a downward trajectory till about observation 16 then it meanders around till about observation 31. At which point it begins an upward track that lasts till almost the end of the chart.
The data in question is real and public but obsolete. I won’t say what it’s source is right now to avoid any bias in your attempts see if we can infer design. I can provide the actual numbers if you like.
The question before the house is. Is the clear overall pattern we see here a record of intention or does it have a “non-mental” cause?
Using the criteria discussed in my “poker” thread I would suggest looking for the following behaviors and excluding a mental cause if they are present.
1) large random spikes in the data
2) sudden changes in the overall pattern of the data that appear to be random
3) long periods of monotony
4) unexplained disjunction in the pattern.
I have some other tests we can look at as well .
What do you say design or not? Are you willing to venture a conjecture?
peace
No he’s not. I mentioned earlier that I don’t see a pattern. I see a bunch of points that could be fit to polynomials of various degrees, but nothing “leaps out” at me.
Of course it’s useless, but that didn’t seem to be what FMM was discussing. At least I thought it was that the behaviors might be indistinguishable. Behavior seemed to be Dennett’s point as well, and I can’t see how that is the issue at all.
I suppose the strict zombie notion–that they’re physically like the conscious person in all ways–has never meant anything to me because it’s unknowable that two things are completely identical (well, there are claims that by using the right quantum physics an exact duplicate could be possible, but the original would end up destroyed, so that hardly helps). But if they are completely identical in physical states (in the thought experiment), you know that the supposed “zombie” is in fact conscious as long as the control human is.
Unless, that is, physical processes don’t affect consciousness–like perception, alcohol, lsd, or getting knocked out. Yes, it can always be saved, but it becomes increasingly absurd.
Glen Davidson
Are the memories of both Captains equally accurate?
How about this thought experiment you awake from a coma to find an exact duplicate of your body laying in the bed next to yours.
The doctors assure you that this other body belongs to another real Alan Fox and you will soon be decommissioned as redundant.
Are they morally culpable for ending your life since the “real” Alan Fox lives on?
peace
It’s as unexplanatory as it was the first time. You can keep repeating it, it won’t become any more meaningful. It would be a pattern like pounding your head agains the brick wall – a pattern, but meaningless.
I always agreed. Namely, it’s a random-looking pattern. But this is of no consequence. The real question is whether the pattern is relevant to anything. You say that it is, but this remains a plain assertion.
Absolutely everything has a pattern if you just look hard enough. That’s not even an issue.
This is not a meaningful sentence. First, you have not established any hypothetical connection between “pattern” and “mindful” so that it could be tested. Second, the OP contains nothing about “mind” or “mindful”, so it was not originally about it, but you have evidently changed your mind somewhere along the way. Third, “mind”, “mindful” and “intention” (in the OP) are nothing simple. You have to proceed with clear definitions to test any of this, but you are clearly never planning to do that.
And for at least a fith time, you lack the definitions and context to look for that sort of behavior in the data. The data in the graph could be anything, as someone said, amount of snowfall at different times (mindless) or of snowplowing (and why call that mindful? how mindful is it really?). There’s no way to tell because you are not providing the context. Anyway, whatever the data is about, someone could say that one can detect a person-like pattern there because the data has been collected and fed into the program by a human being.
But, to state the obvious, it’s a static graph. Graphs don’t have behavior, person-like or otherwise. This is how atrociously ambiguous your test is. It’s an overstatement to call it a test.
Sorry
I must have missed it since I don’t pay a lot of attention to you Patrick.
Would you like me to post several graphs with the same data but randomized to show what the absence of a pattern would look like?
peace
I think fmm is referring to a degree of spatial (or in this case, temporal) correlation in the data, as opposed to shuffling the data points so that the sequence becomes more or less randomised.
I can’t work out if he thinks that ‘non-mental’ data (whatever that is – let’s say data not generated by humans) can’t be spatially or temporally correlated. If he does think that he would be spectacularly wrong.
Of course I don’t think this
it’s not about the mere presence of a pattern it’s about the particular behavior the pattern displays
peace
Physically (from third-person point of view) indistinguishable, consciously (first-person point of view) distinguishable. That’s the position. The zombie simply doesn’t have the first-person view. It’s a puppet on strings, doing anything a person would do, because the body is played by a demon to behave like this, but having no mind of its own.
Only at the instant of duplication. Thereafter they differ more and more as they experience separate and diverging lives.
They have no way of making that determination. Both Captain Kirks are the real Captain Kirk. In your scenario, if the two Alan Foxes, at the moment of the creation of the copy, are identical to the last molecule, atom and quantum state, then they are both the real Alan Fox.
Not possible to determine.
Distinguishable or not distinguishable. Can’t be both. Unless you are a dualist, I suppose.
Only the physical part in the zombie argument would be indistinguishable, but consciousness would be distinct, thus arguing that consciousness is immaterial. And yes, the zombie argument is a dualist argument. That’s the very point of it.
really,
Would you like me to post some random data to see if you can identify the pattern for us?
really? do you actually think I’m saying that every pattern is mindful even after I’ve repeatedly discussed the non-mindful pattern that the poker players identified?
Maybe you need some time to go back and catch up
I’ve asked if you would be satisfied with the amount of context that was given in the standard Turing test. You did not meaningfully respond except to say that you you liked that test more.
No decision has perfect context.
You need to specify exactly how much you need.
really? You don’t really don’t think that variable or temporal information can be represented in a static graph?
peace
Come on, do you actually want us to believe you would you stick to that answer if you were the one being decommissioned?
peace
Do you actually think it’s possible for two entities to be identical to the last molecule, atom and quantum state?
peace
You should have done that in the OP to make this a test worth to be called a test. But you didn’t do this, demonstrating that you don’t know what a test is.
That’s not the issue. The issue is that you have no distinction between mindful and non-mindful pattern that could be tested. And no connection between patterns and minds either, if any. Yes, I understand that there are supposed to be some specific kinds of pattern where you can “infer design” but you didn’t specify that either and again provided no context to test it.
You lack definitions at every step and, when asked, you evade. Invariably. That’s a clear mindless pattern in your behavior.
The other one was a Turing test. Yours is not a Turing test. My like has nothing to do with it.
So you are not getting it. The problem is not how much. The problem is that you fail to understand what’s minimally necessary to make this a test. You failed fundamentally and irreparably.
We are not working on the task of making your test better. We are working on the task of making this even a test of anything. But this is clearly not reaching you.
Yes, it can be represented, but the result is a graph, not a behavior. And, in a graph, you can represent anything and everything else in whichever pattern you like. But the result is never a behavior. Just like when you paint a photo-realistic dog, the result is never a dog. It’s a painting. You lack the definitions and relevant distinctions to comprehend this.
People have been finding images of Jesus in noise for 2000 years. And images of Elvis for a somewhat shorter period of time.
We went through this pattern thing a year ago. Same bullshit, different UI.
I guess you would have to know what the transporter malfunction was.
It’s a thought experiment and a poor one. I don’t think it needs detailed consideration as it’s impossible in reality.
Of course not. For me, that’s the point. 🙂
ETA, suspending disbelief, if such entities existed, they would have an equal right to life in my thought society.
For me, consciousness is a property of the physical entity, the human. So accepting for a second the impossible situation that, for that moment, you have two identical entities with every atom and spin in exact orientation, then you have two identical conscious beings thinking exactly the same thoughts and having exactly the same memories. Then they diverge.
1) I would say that people have been mislabeling minor insignificant patterns as being pictures of Jesus and Elvis.
2) The point of this exercise is to try and minimize that sort of mislabeling
peace
OK then, I will concede that if your position is correct it is in theory possible to prove that God exists or a bot is conscious. That should make the critics who thought that the test was worthless unless it offered proof happy.
However since you are unable to detail what distinguishs the zombie from the person we will say that given your worldview it is impossible at this time to prove those things.
Therefore our positions are functionally equivalent at this time
is everyone happy ???
peace
So you are putting your faith in your own minority position despite the lack of evidence one way or another. And because of this you have placed hard limits on what is even conceivable for you.
Got it. living in this sort of self imposed mental straitjacket must be a bummer
peace
After 7 pages of puzzling over basic definitions that your post has prompted, how do you think you are succeeding? Doesn’t the criticism seem the least bit constructive or instructive?
pretty well considering that the only goal I placed on this thread is to see who was willing to give the test a go and who would fight no matter what
I think I have my answer
peace
Yes, everybody knows what consciousness is for you. The point of the zombie argument (which is not the same as Captain Kirk scenario) is to invite you to think what consciousness really is. For everyone. As I said previously, your position forces you to a number of impermissible conflations, whereas dualism is the framework based on which humanity actually works, such as different punishment for the same crime based on intention (which is not determined by anything physical), radical distinction of physical and mental faculties in human beings, etc.
Would you say it was practical?
You’re assuming your conclusion that they both can’t be “real”, whatever you mean by that. (Another case where operational definitions matter.)
Your loss. Think of all the revelation you’re missing.
What would be the purpose of posting the randomized data points?
By the way, if you’re referring to the kind of randomization described in Is It Real, or Is It Randomized?: A Financial Turing Test, then simply shuffling the data points around won’t work. The authors of that paper computed the deltas between data points and permuted those, preserving the marginal returns. See page 4 of the paper for the details.
The point of your test is to do it thru graphs, not number of proposals.
Yes, we do and none of it requires graphing behavior somehow. You are trying to construct a test which does.
So if they sometimes used the strategy , does it become personlike?
If you graphed a human using the bot’s strategy, so that would provide a false positive for a bot, rendering the test inconclusive in human using bot strategy .
Then it seems the next step would be graphing a bot using a human’s strategy.
Now as you pointed out, using just one human or bot would be unreliable, you would want to build up a database of at least the human using personlike strategies. Bot’s operating systems are less predictable since technologies are not static.
In Texas Hold’em you would need to know the value of the cards at each stage of the game, flop ,turn, and river. Most strategies are dependent on opponents strategy of betting ,so you have many variables in the relationship of bet and cards.
peace
Did the data make it into pastebin?
I’m missing how these statements connect up. I was merely accepting for the moment the premises of a thought experiment that is pointlessly far from reality and trying to demonstrate its absurdity. As a matter of information, I think that all versions of gods are human wishful thinking though that is in itself harmless and I don’t consider it my mission to persuade others from their beliefs.
Trying once more… I am saying that taking the Captain Kirk fantasy as a thought experiment, there is nothing to tell real from fake if you have two perfect copies. Nobody would be able to distinguish a difference, because there would be no difference to distinguish.
I’m sure what I’m trying to say but I may not have been clear. From what you write, I can’t really make out what position you hold about zombie thought experiments.
I’ve no idea what this means.
I’m still waiting for that revelation that will change my life. Maybe tomorrow!
Everybody but me, perhaps. I have no idea how the brain works in any detail. I do think it is premature to invoke untestable and immaterial explanations before we’ve even scratched the surface of physical processes.
M’kay.
Yes, well, there’s another artificial distinction that I don’t accept. Mental states are physical states. I disagree with “not determined by anything physical” as regards cognition. It’s an unnecessary conceit to invoke the immaterial.
And from this follows that a brain scan equals mind-reading. Another conflation that does not hold water in reality.
You may call the distinction between mental and physical artificial, but there it is. It’s not going away.
Does it? Current state of technology doesn’t allow us to see anything like the fineness of detail needed.
It’s of your making, not mine.
It’s a distinction that still has its uses. It’s nonetheless artificial. You could convince me by pointing out evidence for immaterial mental activity. But as I’d need that to be physical, I think we may be at an impasse until there are significant advances in neuroscience.
So, you see a brain scan, but you cannot see what the person is thinking. Then you think all you need to do is look closer? That’s the spirit!
Erik,
I thought you’d appreciate it! Bonne nuit.
I’d say it’s very practical. I use a similar method right now to identify “mindful tampering” in processes. It’s not infallible but it is practical.
peace
No I’m assuming that Alan Fox would take the position that they both can’t be real if it meant that he would be decommissioned. I think that is a pretty safe assumption
peace
To demonstrate that you are being disingenuous when you say you don’t see a pattern in the graph.
We are trying to universalize the test and remove as much bias as possible.
The biggest enemy in Turing tests is personal bias. That is why we aren’t told whether our conversation partner is a bot or not.
The point is that you can’t graph a human using the bots strategy. That is the hypothesis any way. If you could make a poker bot that played like a human my hypothesis would be falsified
We all have a database it’s called our personal experience with other minds. What we need to do is make the generalizations therein explicit.
You are right. To graph the entire strategy would be more difficult.
The cool thing about this sort of test is we can decide to look at a narrow range of data if we choose. For instance we could look at the final bet verses the value of all the cards dealt.
back at ya 😉
nope I pasted it directly here
as soon as you chime in. I will reveal the source of the data
peace
That’s OK we don’t have to understand each other completely to get along.
😉
All you need to know is that I’m fine your position on philosophical zombies it’s irrelevant as far as this test goes
OK, that is my position as well.
I just draw the opposite conclusion from it than you do
That’s OK
It really serves no purpose right now for you to understand my position. Perhaps we can get into it some other time
peace
Hey, I’m seeing a pattern: Whenever there’s a dot, there are zeroes to either side of it. And numbers before dashes are in sequence. It’s designed!
😀
You just demonstrated why such a thing could never happen without a radical change to your worldview.
there is a reason it’s called regeneration 😉
peace
Well folks that is what it looks like to entirely miss the point 😉
peace
Solution “y = 0.000938652415778882*x – 0.00445095079674569”
“R^2 Goodness of Fit” 0.34591112
“Correlation Coefficient” 0.59913269
“Maximum Error” 0.053055287
“Mean Squared Error” 0.00026922785
Solution “y = 0.000919604483330473smm(x, 11) + 0.00612812067436472sin(-64.4150086447984*x)”
“R^2 Goodness of Fit” 0.41027012
“Correlation Coefficient” 0.64518202
“Maximum Error” 0.04897464
“Mean Squared Error” 0.0002427372
Solution “y = 0.000890888049284932sma(x, 11) + 0.00789138099686616sin(0.714886119374471 – 64.4319623618391*x)”
“R^2 Goodness of Fit” 0.41743797
“Correlation Coefficient” 0.64935932
“Maximum Error” 0.049083256
“Mean Squared Error” 0.00023978686
Output