The reality of mind in the future.

[encode_decode]

I read an interesting article written in 2014 just recently . . . from it I make a quote . . .

@Joe Gelonesi

While the Swedish furniture giant might hope for world domination, this might not be part of its plans. It comes down to the idea that the thinking machine doesn’t have to be conscious, nor does its intelligence need to be remotely like ours— all it needs is a goal and a plan. It’s not what intelligence is, it’s what intelligence can do that matters, according to Price.

‘We need to worry about something that’s more effective than we are in controlling the environment on this planet that chooses goals of its own. The danger might actually come from extremely simple goals programmed into it by us.’

Fear not the Terminator, the more mundane factory stacking tool will do.

Read article . . .

Joe seems to make some interesting points that I myself make at times.

[encode_decode]

More good points jerkey . . .

@jerkey

IT need not understand it merely has to function. There may not be a need to qualify this apart from this intrinsic function, to go on forever, (however that concept is defined), it merely has to be able to self replicate, when the so called human limits to understanding are exceeded-transcended

Interesting and quite true. Self replication is a potential danger that should be addressed given that an extension to replication is evolution.

[encode_decode]

I can appreciate what you are saying Stephen C Pedersen . . .

. . . plus it makes me think . . .

@Stephen C Pedersen

David Chalmers see there is a problem with the qualitative aspect of mind that seems rather difficult to compute like the intentional side seems to be. However, that is highly debatable and I have my own concerns with it. However, the qualitative aspect of mind, feelings, sensations, perceptions seem different from tables, chairs, and automobiles. They are intrinsic, subjective aspects to consciousness, which with science can only hint at extrinsic objectivity. Penrose wants to add a new science to science to account for this. I’m interested where this will go since this explanatory gap has a very long beard.

I am interested to know a few of your concerns that you mention Stephen.