Re: consciousness, and AI KR

There are several terms here without even semi-formal definitions that are
doing a lot of work, i.e. your claims are vague and difficult to discuss
clearly let alone measure and assess.

Given the wide berth of interpretation it's especially bold to claim a
false dichotomy of either one agrees with your "facts" or one is relying on
"faith".

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, 10:42 AM Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

> From the AI KR and computational view consciousness isn’t a hard problem.
> Subjective experience distils to information processing with systems of
> neurons. Redness is just a vector of neural activation. Agents have
> situational awareness, i.e. a model of their current environment and goals,
> enabling them to decide on what actions to take. This also includes models
> of other agent’s beliefs and goals, i.e. a theory of mind.  Agents also
> benefit from a model of past, present and future, i.e. a functional
> episodic memory that complements encyclopaedic memory, such as birds fly
> and dogs bark. Episodic memory enables agents to reason about cause and
> effect, to understand intent, and to create and adapt plans.
>
> However, this won’t convince everyone.  Plenty of people have beliefs that
> are a matter of faith rather than of facts. That’s fine. But engineering
> and science doesn’t work that way!  AI will continue to evolve and AGI is
> just a matter of time.  I attach a picture that makes the point. A
> stochastic synthesis of ideas as evidence that artistic sensibility can be
> reduced to neural processing.
>
>
> > On 22 Oct 2023, at 05:38, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Consciousness is too huge a topic . Undecidable, too much can be said
> about without ever reaching any conclusion, possibly because no single
> theory or point of view can exhaust the subject. However
> > I d like to suggest simply that it is tackled only in relation to AI KR.
> Surely. consciousness is relevant to AI and to KR discussion and potential
> standards. We should keep that in mind where possible and parsimoniously
> limit our considerations accordingly
> >
> > I ll leave it to Carl to liaise with the WoT group, since he is a member
> there and brought up the subject.
> > I ll work on tidying up some of the resources shared on the list into
> some form of coherent narrative when I can, that is my next task
>
> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>