|This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Pistols at dawn
I searched the Google for consciousness and predict and found easily an article where is said that the ability to predict is necessary to consciousness, not "influenced by me", the one I didn't know at all. But I don't say it to you Paul because I don't talk to you before you apologize, this is an unfortunate obstacle you made. If you like, I can say it to Matt Stan or anybody of your choose. tkorrovi
Apologise for what? Paul Beardsell 15:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) Guessing: "involuntary knee reflex" was not an insult. Everyone has one. I was using it only in its literal sense and I believe this is understandable from the context. Paul Beardsell 15:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
> Guessing: "involuntary knee reflex" was not an insult.
This was one more insult from you.
Thank you, but it was still not an apology from you. Links what I quickly found what also argue that ability to predict is the ability of consciousness were submitted to artificial consciousness forum at: http://tkorrovi.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1079195799
It seems you have several complaints about me which (typically) you refuse to state clearly but I essentially only have one about you: You are unable to argue by the accepted rules of argument. There are 5 points as to why the ability to anticipate is not a necessary component of consciousness yet you let those stand unchallenged. You response is "I am not the only one who thinks so." My response to that is, "So what! Address yourself to the argument." Paul Beardsell 16:24, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I said that I don't discuss anything with you before you apologize. And now also provide papers what support *your* arguments, remember you were the one who demanded them. tkorrovi
I have done better than that: I have provided arguments. But it seems there is no need as you destroy your own case. See below. Paul Beardsell 16:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Predictability not necessary
I do not have Powerpoint on my computer so I cannot look at the first link mentioned at your AC forum article (link above). But I have followed the second link and I quote from it 
- So can we create a situation/experiment/test, such that when the thing passes this test, we can assume it is conscious? (Not passing the test thus does not say it is NOT conscious!) Most of us agree that the test should check the ability to learn, to predict and to generalize previous experiences.
This makes exactly my point not yours: Three examples of tests are suggested one of which is the ability to predict and "Not passing the test thus does not say it is NOT conscious!" Precisely! None of the three examples of desirable qualities of the conscious being need NECESSARILY be there. That is what your own reference says!
Paul Beardsell 16:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Depends on test. You still *didn't* apologize. tkorrovi
That isn't what your reference says. I apologise that your own reference makes my point. Paul Beardsell 16:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
First - Apologize!!! This is what my reference says that to predict is said to be ability of consciousness. This is why you asked tha reference, now you want to claim that you are right when you in fact were wrong. tkorrovi
Your interpretation of the argument is not correct. I said telling the future was not an ability of consciousness. Matt Stan then reinterpretated your point for you. I then readily allowed predictability meaning anticipation as a desirable feature but disagreed when your phrasing made predicatability a NECESSARY feature of consciousness. I have argued that were one desirable property of consciousness missing the device could still be conscious. Your recent edits insisted that predictability was a necessary property of consciousness. You quoted a reference in support which supports not your views but both my views (i) predictability not necessary and (ii) not all tests need be passed. The edit log is clear. Seems to me that the apology should be the other way around. But that isn't the point. The point is what is the correct views to have in our encyclopedia. Progress is being made, slowly. Paul Beardsell 17:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For exposing you as a dishonest arguer? Paul Beardsell 17:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Your next offence/insult. Apologize!!! Stop insulting me, I have the whole right in the world to demand it. tkorrovi
OK, I apologise for getting you upset. Paul Beardsell 17:58, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, thank you Paul. But unfortunately you did it too late, so that I already wrote about your behaviour in peer review page. I was planning to go further. So now it is that when we manage to solve the dispute, I shall try to delete my comment from there. tkorrovi
Please do not remove from peer review. I am confident that my efforts here will be seen to be constructive but combative. At every point I was prepared to make my view known and to argue it. You have not argued logically and when your argument is shown to be flawed you yell "insult". I am sorry you are upset but I think your input has not been positive. Now I have made an attempt to come up with a new version which has a chance of avoiding controversy and you insist on reverting that. No. Complain away. Paul Beardsell 18:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, if I say that you insulted me then it was insult what others also consider an insult, *not* constructive criticism, don't pretend. And I consider that you took back your apology. Apologize! tkorrovi
I want a new version as an attempt to get past the impasse.
tkorrovi was not happy with that and reverted back to a much earlier version. Back to before I showed that the reference he quotes does not say what he thought it said.
I suggest that a third party pick one of the recent versions and freeze that for the time being pending comments here. Hopefully there are lots of them.
Paul Beardsell 19:04, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This was done already, the version freezed by me was mostly written by you, Matt Stan and others. Not the version how I would like it to be, but a version where everything what could be considered constructive, what didn't make any statement wrong, and with what one may at least in some way agree with, was included. I had reasons to revert several changes, but I didn't, I find inportant for different people to put it as they see it. But including all your (recent) changes, you try to remove everything so that this article would only be written by you, this is not fear towards me and others who edited this article. Please understand that I only try to be objective in that respect. tkorrovi
We have had contributions about the fly, we have had sci-fi contribs "because the article is broken anyway", we have *you* insisting that there is *one* attribute of consciousness which is defining (or only one which you want to have mentioned). Yet there is a comparitively learned article about consciousness which makes an attempt to give the definition of consciousness in an academic way. Certainly my proposed new version loses your pet sentence but to characterise it as something only I have written is rubbish but typically misrepresentative. If we have a better start perhaps we will attract other contributors. But while we squabble about every little thing? You seem to claim that we had an article that everyone was happy with???? Well, I refer you to the "broken" remark. You claim an attempt to be objective. Well, I claim the same. Let it be judged by results, not intentions. Paul Beardsell 19:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say that there is only one defining attribute of consciousness, I wanted to say that artificial consciousness must be theoretically capable of achieving all known and objective abilities of consciousness what average human has, but this "all" is not even included in the version I froze now, because it was first edited out by you. In spite of that, we cannot call it artificial consciousness, if this condition is not met. Out of specific context we should determine consciousness in the widest sense, ie "the totality of a person's thoughts and feelings" (Oxford Dictionary), this totality is then the only aspect what determines consciousness, we have no defining ability of consciousness and we cannot consider consciousness something what is capable of achieving only half of the abilities of the average person. Similarily we cannot call artificial consciousness something what we know is incapable of achieving half of the abilities of average person. I hope that this explanation was enough to explain that I indeed don't think that there must be a defining ability of consciousness, though I also don't think that this possibility is excluded. tkorrovi
Yes, but this is *your* POV not the Wikipedia standard of a NPOV (neutral point of view). I hesitate to ask for more references. Paul Beardsell 19:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Buy the glasses, I said that "all" was removed *by you* and I didn't revert it, though more fear solution would been to include both versions of the description. So at present (in my frozen version) there is nothing what reflects in text of what I said above. tkorrovi
The "this" to which I refer is your long para above. Paul Beardsell 20:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
New Merged Version
You first revert because content is lost. Now, I add content to your favorite version, none of the new content you care to object to here, and you revert. Essentially you prevent me now from adding non-controversial text to the version of the article you like. This is not the action of a reasonable person, by saying so doubtless I insult you again. Paul Beardsell 20:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have no time for tricks, sorry. There would not be a another new version by you, the frozen version remains. tkorrovi
If I understand what you say it is this: "There would not be a another new version by you". I.e. *You* say *I* cannot edit here any longer. Paul Beardsell 20:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you exceeded your limits. Now give a possibility to others also. But because of Paul, who wants to make changes, better post them here first because otherwise it's difficult for me to incorporate them into version to be reverted, and I may make mistakes. tkorrovi
But who gave you that privilege. There are those who do have the authority to ban me from editing this article. But not you. But now it isn't only my edits you revert. I won't be posting my proposed changes here on the Talk page. You can review what I want to do by examining what my last version is. There you can see that what I have done can only be considered good. I doubt your ability to criticise it and I see you are not trying to. We don't need censors of the type you are currently being here. It seems to me that if your actions are to be seen by others as fair you had better not be excluding any constructive changes from me or anyone. Time to re-read the dispute resolution procedure. I suggest you do the same. Paul Beardsell 20:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't ever delete anything from this talk page and even didn't move anything, what you did. And I never will. All this can be checked in the history of this talk page. But I shall not incorporate your changes until the decision of the administrators. I will incorporate the constructive changes of the others, especially the new issues to be added as I think that this article must incorporate different opinions/views/approaches. tkorrovi
Oh sorry, I still deleted one thing, and this was my answer to your offensive remark, after you deleted your remark, never to be repeated again. tkorrovi
I never deleted your text. When I moved something to a better location you more or less accused me of murder. If I were you I would have claimed to have been insulted.
What if, when somebody comes along and has a look and they say that these changes proposed by me, Paul Beardsell, especially the last ones where I merged everything in, that they are good changes and they recommend that it is my latest version we all go with, what will you say then? What if they ban you for a period for being so unreasonable? Will you accept those judgements in good faith? Will you apologise?
Having a look around I notice you have contributed to nothing at Wikipedia except this article. Why is that? Paul Beardsell 20:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is it reasonable to define the term artificial consciousness in terms of consciousness. And if not, why not? 126.96.36.199 21:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would incorporate constructive changes of yours then. But this somebody must be logged in and identifiable user. tkorrovi
Normally I do not login. It does seem you are being somewhat heavy handed. I find myself in some sympathy with Paul Beardsell. This behaviour (yours) is non-wikipedia behaviour, his (Paul's) is robust but you are too sensitive. Ataturk 21:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, thanks, I think. I note you seem to have got most of my text included. Paul Beardsell 21:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
188.8.131.52, there is no other way to describe AC as through consciousness for it to be related to consciousness (to be artificial *consciousness*). BTW, see above that defining AC through consciousness is not circular. And *please* register, 184.108.40.206 is even hard to write. Sam, from Concise Oxford Dictionary "artefact" -- 1. a product of human art and workmanship. This was written by Matt, I suggested "artificial system" first, as "artificial" means just "formed in imitation of something natural" (Concise Oxford Dictionary) therefore leaving the possibility suggested by some that AC can be made by another AC. tkorovi
"Artifact" is the more usual spelling.
- I think this is a UK/US thing. My Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives: artifact n. var. of ARTEFACT. Your reference gives: Variant of artifact. I'm not really fussed either was, though it was I changed it not realising the American spelling. Are there conventions in Wikipedia for this? Matt Stan 21:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And "artificial fibre" is to "natural fibre" what "artificial consciousness" is to "natural consciousness". "Artificial" is an adjective, "consciousness" is a noun. Ataturk 21:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't know that there are conventions, one convention I know is that some international agreements must only include words from Concise Oxford Dictionary, this is the one I'm used to. My dictionary (1990s edition) says "also artifact", but nevertheless "artifact" is correct also, I shall incorporate it. Ataturk, may well be so, the terms "artificial consciousness" and "consciousness" are not identical. Another question is whether they result in the same thing, ie similarly maybe it's possible to make artificial fibre what is identical to natural fibre, though it's not very likely, and of course the difference is still that it was made artificially. tkorrovi
Blue fibre is fibre, red fibre is fibre. Natural fibre is fibre, artificial fibre is fibre. Natural consciousness is consciousness, artificial consciousness is consciousness. Sometimes artificial fibre is better than natural fibre. Sometimes artificial consciousness is better than natural consciousness. Ataturk 22:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, "consciousness" only means "natural consciousness" as it means human abilities -- "the totality of a person's thoughts and feelings" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). It's reasonable to assume that average (ordinary) person is considered, not a person with extraordinary mental powers etc. tkorrovi
Artificial consciousness does not yet exist. Before artificial fibre, "fibre" meant natuaral fibre. Once we have artificial consciousness then the word consciousness will require qualificiation. So it is an accident of history: Artificial consciousness has not yet been assembled. And that is why consciousness now means natural consciousness only. There is no other type. Yet. It is as nonsensical to state that consciousness means natural consciousness as it to state that fibre means natural fibre. Ataturk 22:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry but I am not going to have each and every one of my changes vetted this way. I made a perfectly comprehensible change yet it needs "approval". This is Wikipedia! Ataturk 22:56, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- By "this way" and by "approval" I mean that there is some "Master Editor". I have asked a question about "Master Editor" at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Ataturk 02:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ataturk, we must go with what we have by now if we would like to talk about or develop AC, nobody knows exactly how things would be redefined in the future. tkorrovi
> I am sorry but I am not going to have each and every one of my changes vetted this way. I made a perfectly comprehensible change yet it needs "approval". This is Wikipedia!
Exactly, and therefore I as everyone have the same right to edit as you do. I left in several of your changes, but because Wikipedia is edited by many people, you cannot want that your changes remain exactly as you entered them. I understand that your last change was just moving parts of text to other places, I cannot see the purpose of it, or then please explain what you exactly wanted to say with that.
We are all editors equally. My change is one you do not like. Well, I like it. So far equal. I have these reasons for making the change - that I believe it works better like this, the text flows better and reads better and ideas from the "AC is always artificial never proper consciousness" school of thought are kept together, mutually re-inforcing yet are not stated as fact which would thus obscure the "artificial consciousness is (or one day will be) proper consciousness" school of thought. You have a POV, I have a POV. I have stated the reason for my change - your reason for reversion requires you to do more than say "I don't see why" or "I cannot agree with you" or "you are wrong". You have to _argue_ your POV. To do otherwise is RUDE. Ataturk 23:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ataturk, this is what you believe, I don't find it a good solution, though I agree that during so much changes the text became less organized, inevitable in such case, but *very* hard to change in agreement. I don't know what the solution must be, maybe discussing it in my forum part by part, if there is stamina for such hard work.
And then, as I see that Paul, and *maybe* not only Paul, wants to remove almost all content of this article or then water the conditions what try make artificial consciousness strong or then reasonable by removing these statements instead of adding his point of view as one point of view to other points of view. I don't know, I cannot deny one possible conjecture that he simply don't like artificial consciousness in general, don't consider it reasonable, necessary etc. Such doubts are also in the article now, and it's good but if this is the case, then why one comes to edit the page what he ignores, isn't it better then to left it to people who are interested in it (including these who doubt in it), both editing or just reading. Isn't it similar to as if you don't like mathematics, you erase all equations from blackboard? tkorrovi
Well, my view, for what it is worth, is that tkorrovi is not prepared to tolerate any view other than his own. He will let people tinker at the edges, he will not recognise the side swipes taken by others, but as soon as someone (usually me) inserts a "some" or a "maybe" into one of his sentences then he fails to argue his points cogently, takes umbrage, calls "insult", and starts throwing his weight around on the revert button. Some of my edits have been of the nature that he describes but mostly I have been adding views, not replacing them, and the majority of reverts have by tkorrovi have been of perfectly good edits which he has ket stand when made by someone else. It really is a question of fairness and balance. Paul Beardsell 00:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have protected this page until the two involved in reverting each other concile their differences. ugen64 00:12, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. Ataturk 00:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thank you Ugen64, to protect this article was a reasonable decision. I didn't want to do this as I wanted to give others a possibility to add changes, but this was a trial to me as this article was on the verge of removing all the content. I feel better now, released from a hard obligation, thank you again. I would like to reconcile with Paul Beardsell, most and foremost I want peace here. But unfortunately Paul didn't so far do almost anything towards reconciling, not to speak that he apologize, if there is something I could reasonably do to move him in that direction, please say. Tkorrovi
Well I am not party to that battle. All I want to do is to be able to edit text which other people do not stamp on unless it is not NPOV. I will not tolerate a situation where one party sets themselves up above the others as some sort of uber-censor. Ataturk 00:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And, if I may complete the thought, where one is able to edit other peoples points of view where they are not NPOV. Paul Beardsell 00:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And was Paul NPOV for just trying to remove most of the content instead of adding your views, for it really to be NPOV? I didn't want to be above others, just to protect myself because I was attacked, and also others because Paul tried to remove that ebtered by others as well. This is what put me in such situation where I never wanted to be. And in spite of that I didn't protect this page, let others edit it and didn't remove their changes, as you see the article now is *mostly* not written by me. I want to be just, I want to be tolerant. I started this article after it did stay empty for a long time after only one initial edit. I thought it was a good thing to do. I tried it from all my heart, but if you look a little above in this talk page, you see how I was treated, though did I once insult antbody or was injust to anyone? I tried not to allow myself anything more than what is allowed for editor, it was peaceful place before with many people editing this article, but the mess what Paul caused after coming here was unimaginable. And after that he asked peer review, did he think who possibly would like to peer review this article after such mess? Tkorrovi
Why do you think I am here? And I was getting annoyed too. Ataturk 01:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I suggest you recognise that the POV that Artificial Consciousness can be real consciousness is a valid point of view. You write a section where you argue it is not real and I will write one where I argue it is real. Ataturk 01:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ataturk, thank you indeed, now you finally said your point of view clearly, I couldn't exactly catch it from your previous explanations. This point of view *must* be added because it's better that there are as much point of views as possible for reader to be able to choose what he prefers, as far as they are not *obviously* wrong, and I don't think that your point of view is obviously wrong. What I think is that it is very questionnable that someone ever succeeds to make AC equivalent to real consciousness, but this doesn't mean that I anyhow oppose adding it in article. Sorry for inconveniences I caused to you, see my talk page. And thank you for being here even amidst of all this mess, sorry again for everything what might been unpleasant for you. Tkorrovi
Where do we write our respective sections? Possible Talk:Artificial consciousness/real and Talk:Artificial consciousness/notreal? Is that how sub-pages work? testing, testing Ataturk 02:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ataturk, I'm not exactly expert either in editing methods of Wikipedia. But sections in page are certainly not as web pages what are addressed as server_name/web_page, in fact when you edit section, only a section number appears in the web address. As I understand to start a section, you must "post a comment" (a tag to the left of the page) once, and write the section title in the subject box. The section appears in the text beginning with something like =section=. Next time you want to write in the section, one must bot use the "post a comment" feature, but click on "edit" in the beginning of that section left side of the page. then just write the text to the end. Well, all I can say about that by now, possibly there may still be something in particular what I yet don't know. Tkorrovi
Err, sorry, I wrote it too hastidly, edit tag is in right side of the page. Tkorrovi
You misunderstand. I am suggesting the two sections are written on sub-pages of this page. The links to the two sub-pages which can be found three paras above. More help can be found here Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Ataturk 01:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, you suggest to write an article either entirely based on one point of view or entirely based on other point of view ("real" or "not real"), this is not NPOV ("no point of view") principle of Wikipedia. As there are different points of view, then the article can be NPOV only when all these points of view are incorporated in one article. Tkorrovi
Now you have me confused as only a few paras above you seem to be in favour of the idea. Ataturk 02:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
All I am suggesting is that there are two edit areas while a consensus is being determined. Ataturk 02:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you want please change your mind: You will see that I have commented that I could not do a version which only does Strong AC, I have had to incorporate what I understand to be the Weak AC view: Essentially these are your views as I have understood them from your writings here. I would be very happy for you to contribute to the version I have started. I want everybody to contribute. Then, at some point, we will announce a consensus and the page can be unfrozen without a flurry of reverts then occurring. Ataturk 03:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)