If a machine passes the Turing test, then it is indistinguishable from human. So if humans are conscious then the machine must be indistinguishable from conscious.
Humans evolved by group selection for both empathy and violence because groups whose members supported each other and killed outsiders had greater reproductive success. Pain is not the same as suffering. It is a signal that makes you avoid the thing that caused it. Because you have the illusion of free will, you interpret your behavior as a fear of suffering. Dying does not cause suffering because your memory is erased. Suppose you are given two options: 1. A false memory of torture is programmed into your brain. 2. You are actually tortured, and then the memory of it is erased. Which would you choose? I know for a fact that if you experienced both that next time you would choose 2. For all you know, that is how anesthesia works. -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] On Mon, Oct 12, 2026, 12:15 PM twenkid <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matt:* By that definition, no objective test exists.* > > Todor: Yes, IMO there is no objective test. > > Маtt: *"It amazes me that people have not yet accepted that AI has > already surpassed human intelligence."* > > Todor: Indeed it has surpassed it in many ways, it depends on the > definitions. Even GPT2 Medium generates better texts than most humans. > Consciousness (subjective experience) and intelligence are different > dimensions, as explained here and "everywhere". However the localization of > the agents and "what they are" is problematic. > > Matt: *"Humans are social animals that evolved to suffer when they see > others suffer." * > > Todor: This is far from universally true, there are much more severe cases > than the Stanford experiment (it might have been fraud as well). There is > no one monolithic thing called "humans". > > *Human systems *and humans *as tokens and cogs in these machines *evolved > also to **want to cause other humans to suffer** if that would give them, > both the system or them personally, an advantage. Humans closest relatives > - the chimps - also sometimes exhibit this behavior. > > Signs of "consciousness", even ones matching some official definitions, do > not save other people from being slaughtered by other "empathetic and > conscious" apes, and sometimes it rather **encourages* *the sadistic > agents to apply more violence, because they *want their victim to > suffer. *If the oppressors believe that the victim "is not sentient", > they would be less aggressive - that is like beating a dead body or a > puppet. > > The human "empathy" is addressed in AGI safety context by the early 2000s > (or by early 1960s by others, or by early 1920s by Karel Capek, and by > philosophers like Kant, Schopenhauer or Marx by 18-th and 19-th century). > > Matt: *"removing the amygdala"* > > You remove *manifestations*, behaviors that you *associate with*. > External behavior or observable phenomena are not equal to the subjective > experience. If they were, then the objective=subjective, therefore they > match. Humans often cannot even get that. > If a person suffers a stroke, she may have her facial nerves paralyzed, > other subcortical structures damaged and neural pathways broken, motor > areas damaged, cerebellum damaged, neurotransmitter damaged. They cannot > exhibit the behavior as complete agents, "human beings", that they had > before the trauma. You do not know if "they", whatever is locked "inside", > does not keep suffering and experiencing pain, however being unable to > express it in a way that you, or any evaluator-observer, considers the > "legitimate" way to express having consciousness, sentience, feeling pay > etc. > > *EXPRESSING* pain in a "codified" or "conventional way" is what the > "vanilla" homo sapiens expect, e.g.. they search for matches to their own > known behaviors. > > In addition, referring to the theory of the Integral of infinitesimal > selves (see "Analysis of the meaning of a sentence ...", 2004 which > addresses this concept and the multi-level, multi-scale, multi-agent > cumulative reward hypothesis for modeling of complex human-like intelligent > agents; another paper from 2013? on "Artificial Mind" which also addresses > the lack of an Integral self, but claims as the original one that the > integrity is constructed by the boundaries of the body and it represents > the predictive model of the evaluator-observer who tries to explain he > behavior by his compressed and incomplete models. > > > Matt: *"**If it passes the Turing test then it is indistinguishable from > having subjective consciousness"* > > Todor: *IMO there is no such logical entailment.* The concepts should > first be defined, as well. What is "subjective consciousness"? How > precisely the Turing test is defined? What exactly counts as "passing" - > human judges ("random" or any kind) may cheat, their opinions are not a > serious measure. There must be explicit measure, and if there is one, in a > *text-only* test (code-only) it can be passed. > > What this proofs is that the system "passes it", nothing about the > consciousness. You can believe any object is "consciousness", a simpler > dialog program "passes the Turing test" (depending on how many questions, > which questions, how much and what requirements you have etc. - for someone > a very simple conversation is "human-like", for another one - it should be > like if he talks to Kant; however if the machine speaks like Kant, the > first human may say: "a human cannot talk like that, this is fake". > > The evaluators (=Eva) may watch for different marks, signs, details for > their judgment, for example: > 1. Is the text of the Interlocutor (Max) internally coherent, > 2. Does the text in each message of Max properly reflects what Eva said? > 2.1. In the previous message. 2.2. In earlier message. 2.3. How deeply in > the past? 2.4. How complex? 2.5. What is the memory of Eva? 2.6. Is Eva > allowed to review old messages and to verify them with other tools, more > than just the "teletype" keyboard? > > Matt: *"consciousness, which requires two agents, one to predict human > behavior and the other to carry out those predictions in real time.* > * "* > This is not consciousness as sentience, awareness, phenomenal experience > etc. and "self-awareness" in spiritual sense. "Real time" is elastic, > complexity is elastic (what aspects of "human behavior" - how many bits to > describe it; why? what precision? text is a very few bits). > > When one predicts and can cause other "entity" (sub-universe, data, > whatever) to change in the desired ways, this is "control", connection, > mapping, reflection, influence - not consciousness. > > "Humans" themselves are "elastic" as a concept and exist in many > variations and partially. > > > Matt: *"The third option is just to convince ourselves that machines > don't suffer.* > > * "*What is a machine? Where exactly its boundaries lie? When does it > suffer and when it doesn't? When a human suffers - if this is subjective, > you cannot know, if may be silent about it. One may be very noisy and > suffer less than someone who is mute. An agonizing man might be in a hell > of pain, but already unable to move, and as he cannot "return from the > outer world" and tell - an observer may believe that the agonizing person > was already saved from the torture of life. > > There was a case of a man, sentenced to death with an injection, where the > procedure went wrong and they tortured the poor fellow for half an hour or > an hour with terrible way, burning him from the inside, semi-awaken etc. > > Indeed, the "justified executions" by the judicial systems are an example > of humans who want to see another human suffering. Some of the official > bullshit is that the procedures are designed "to cause less suffering" - > the guillotine also had a "copywriter" who advertised it like that. > > If the sadist, wearing suits, and the apes, wearing any kinds of clothes, > really wanted the sentenced to death not to suffer, the procedures would be > with methods which make the victim calmly fall asleep, be tired etc. and > die in his sleep. Yet they still *don't know* what their victim feels, as > it cannot return from the deaths to tell. > > The poor guy who was tortured woke up between the steps of the sadistic > procedure and he did express the "path" if the brains capability to record > the sensation and feelings, whatever they are, wasn't shut off yet, but > appeared off for some time. > > > > > *References:*"death sentence injection gone wrong man painful" -- see in > another message. > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T1b6c21f92326684e-M88eb12e780c8823b0a995dbf> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T1b6c21f92326684e-Mdca8d17ca1bac9c25e4f90d7 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
