1 Million Dollar Challenge To Materialists – Prove A Computer Can Experience A Dream!

[Open Mind]

I don't think I need to worry about handing out any money in my lifetime (just to make sure , I will base it on James Randi's JREF challenge rules ..... i.e. I (or my cronies) decide what qualifies as proper test, the level of extraordinary evidence required, tests I don't like I reject, I control the media rights and the entrant gives up any right to sue me later )

On with the real topic ...

Can A (Classical) Computer Experience A Subjective Dream?

Everynight, humans enter REM sleep, dreaming is either so important or unstoppable that the body evolved sleep paralysis (to prevent sleep walking) while conscious dreams occur.

How do you do the equivalent on a computer ..... the input/output devices are resting, so you aren't allowed cameras, screens, speakers, sensors ....... but you are allowed a super computer with processor, RAM and a hard disk and any software you like ..... now make it dream, see images, hear sounds, feel the sensations of hope, anger, worry, joy and so on.....

Is this what materialists believe is possible? A computer is just switches .. 1s and 0s, there is no (current) fact in physics or chemistry that gives these any particular meaning. Nor do computer 'neural networks' with more complex parallel distributive processing overcome the fact these are still just non-conscious on and off switches. ... all else is metaphors in the minds of artificial inteligence experimenters. What computers do just has conscious meaning to humans ... a conscious observer is required for any of it to have a meaning?

I could be wrong. For example if panpsychism is correct ( i.e. everything including particles have elementary consciousness) then perhaps machines will become obviously conscious with increasing complexity .....but how do you measure 1st person subjective experience? If I had a million dollars would my money be safe?

[David Bailey]

LOL - excellent challenge!

I think using orthodox computers, you could simplify the challenge to prove that a computer can experience ANYTHING!

My hunch would be that it would be possible to produce a machine that would tap into something non-material, if we can.

David

[Miguel]

I'm having a little trouble imagining how this would work.
Could you provide a sample protocoll?
EG, how would you prove that you can experience a dream? Or anything?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Miguel

I'm having a little trouble imagining how this would work.
Could you provide a sample protocoll?
EG, how would you prove that you can experience a dream? Or anything?

Well this put the boot on the other foot - you and Paul always want proof - say that NDE's are what they purport to be - but really proving anything at all about consciousness is damn difficult.

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Miguel

I'm having a little trouble imagining how this would work.
Could you provide a sample protocoll?

Here are 3 (James Rand JREF style) protocols to statisfy 'skeptics' (who lack doubt)

Protocol 1. The entrant applies, they submit protocol, I raise the bar to my terms, the entrant withdraws, then I count the failed application as another failed attempt to win my prize.

Protocol 2. I test some no hopers along the way, just to show how silly the concept of a conscious computer is for media purposes.

Protocol 3. I challenge AI designers for misusing metaphors and to enter my prize .... if they are daft enough to enter, my expert cronies test their dream machine for extraordinary evidence of dreaming.

EG, how would you prove that you can experience a dream? Or anything?

The burden of proof is on the claimant!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Can A (Classical) Computer Experience A Subjective Dream?

Please define "subjective dream."

How do you do the equivalent on a computer ..... the input/output devices are resting, so you aren't allowed cameras, screens, speakers, sensors .......

So we're talking about the kind of dreams where no sensory inputs affect it. Please make sure you explain this in your definition of subjective dream.

... now make it dream, see images, hear sounds, feel the sensations of hope, anger, worry, joy and so on.....

How do we verify that this has happened?

Is this what materialists believe is possible? A computer is just switches .. 1s and 0s, there is no (current) fact in physics or chemistry that gives these any particular meaning. Nor do computer 'neural networks' with more complex parallel distributive processing overcome the fact these are still just non-conscious on and off switches. ... all else is metaphors in the minds of artificial inteligence experimenters. What computers do just has conscious meaning to humans ... a conscious observer is required for any of it to have a meaning?

How does any of this rule out the possibility that our phenomenal experience is nothing more than computation?

The burden of proof is on the claimant!

Absolutely, as long as the organization offering the prize defines their terms in a way that allows the claimants to agree with the definitions.

~~ Paul

[sparky]

in this you make two comparisons,
you equate the brain with a computer, and your challenge with Randi's one

well , let us take a closer look

the brain has (very) roughly 100 billion neurons with an estimated 7000 synaptic connections each
this results in an incredibly parrallel processing system where the "hardware" is in a way the "software" ( terms that are in fact hopelessly inadequate )
software/hardware that rewrites itself with every action
has a few hundreds of millions years of evolution under it's belt

a modern PC maybe 2 or 3 billion transistors ?
a digital computer operates mostly serial , vastly faster but if you should want to simulate neurons with it , the processing power you need would grow exponentially for every neuron you ad , the same for the processing time
practical computers have a good 60 years of history

so , if with dreaming you mean the same experience humans have , i guess your money is safe

the callenge,
yours : challenges a practical claim never made by anyone , as far as i know; makes it a straw man
also very safe
in your case we do not know if you are good for the money

Randi's : challenges existing claims , lots of them , makes the existance of PSI implausible by never being met in about 13 years
safe up to the present ,
JREF , definitely good for the money

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Please define "subjective dream."

It is what you experience when you sleep, every night.

So we're talking about the kind of dreams where no sensory inputs affect it.

Dreams can be somewhat influenced in content by the body senses ... but it doesn't explain dreams, if people lose sight or go deaf, they still can see and hear in dreams. It is not critical to dreaming.

How do we verify that this has happened?

Not my problem, there is no technology to measure when a computer is feeling angry or it's sensation of colour or it's taste of apple pie or the sharp pain in it's computer phantom limb

How does any of this rule out the possibility that our phenomenal experience is nothing more than computation?

I have decided that it is an extraordinary claim that computers can feel love towards their children or pet cat ..... the burden of proof is on the claimant

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by sparky

so , if with dreaming you mean the same experience humans have , i guess your money is safe

Good.

Randi's : challenges existing claims , lots of them , makes the existance of PSI implausible by never being met in about 13 years
safe up to the present. JREF , definitely good for the money

JREF hasn't test many, it is about 2 entrants per year, about 95% of entrants are never tested. It is meaningless in conclusion for other reasons too.

I do NOT actually approve of unfair prize challenges. I was parodying the JREF style of challenge.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Good.


JREF hasn't test many, it is about 2 entrants per year, about 95% of entrants are never tested. It is meaningless in conclusion for other reasons too.

most peole entering , cannot even state correctly what their eledged abbillity or claim is
things are claimed that are practically untestable
some people do not agree with the rules
are these the 95% you are talking about ?

i think it is very meaningfull , specially the fact that so few even make it to the tests

I do NOT actually approve of unfair prize challenges. I was parodying the JREF style of challenge.

is the JREF prize unfair ?
or do you think it is unfair because nobody has succeeded in taking the money ?