.)
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?: To judge that this image is incorrect, a machine would need to be conscious of many things about the world (unless programmed for just such a photograph).
Image: Geof Kern
More In This Article
-
Overview
A Test for Consciousness
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
**Update: This contest ended as of September 1st, 2011 at 11:59pm ET. Thank you for your interest. If you would like more information on this topic, take a look at Christof Koch's June 2011 article, A Test for Consciousness. **
The mystery of human consciousness appears routinely as one of the greatest science problems of all time. One way to get a grip on this seemingly ineffable property would be to build a conscious machine. It may be many years before that happens. But the overriding question, when someone does try, will be: how will we know whether that machine is really conscious—and not merely faking it?
Probing a machine for consciousness need not require an elaborate mathematical construct. In fact, it might derive from something as simple as a street photo snapped with a cell phone camera, or you could use photo editing software to devise an image that just about any human would recognize is irrational or nonsensical, but that even today’s smartest computers might pass over as reasonable.
With that in mind, Scientific American invites you to create a photo (or two) for our Great Consciousness Contest that is based on a challenge set out by two leading neuroscientists, Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi, in the magazine’s June issue. The contest is looking for photos or images that depict a nonsensical scenario that could be perceived as sensible by any existing machine that attempts to imitate the conscious reasoning abilities of a human.
The authors define consciousness here as an ability to understand whether a photograph depicts an image that makes sense based on knowledge of the world that most people share—general knowledge that no present-day computer is capable of storing and processing in the way people do. A person, for instance, knows that a keyboard belongs in front of a computer screen, whereas a potted plant in that spot does not.
A computer might be able to win at Jeopardy, but it doesn’t have the basic common sense to understand that something is just plain wrong with the off-kilter juxtaposition of an iMac paired with a geranium. Koch and Tononi describe similar examples in their article, "A Test for Consciousness," available to readers free of charge. Even a six-year old, for instance, can pinpoint the fundamental improbability of an ice skater on the rug in the living room, a transparent cow or a cat chasing a dog. Yet a computer doesn’t "know” these things about the world.
These absurd yet simple images devised by the authors to illustrate this distinction between conscious human and unconscious computer led us to the idea of a contest in which readers could contribute their own examples of pictures that might fool a machine. Entries of digital images that display illogical imagery similar to what is described above can be submitted to ScientificAmerican.com for judging by Koch and Tononi and Scientific American editors (see the rules below). Koch and Tononi are the judges because unfortunately a real machine that could be used to carry out such a contest does not yet exist.
Three winning submissions will be selected by Koch and Tononi for a chance to be featured on our Web site. Winners will also receive a copy of Christoph Koch's book on the same topic, Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist.
To submit photos to Scientific American's Great Consciousness Contest, simply read the official rules and fill out the form below. Please only submit photos that are your original work and for which you have distribution rights.
All fields marked with * are required.
Contest has ended and submission form has been removed.
The Scientific American™ “Great Consciousness” Contest
Official Rules
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. A PURCHASE DOES NOT IMPROVE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING.
Contest may only be entered in or from the 50 United States and the District of Columbia and entries originating from any other jurisdiction are not eligible for entry. This Contest is governed exclusively by the laws of the United States. You are not authorized to participate in the Contest if you are not located within the United States.
1. How to Enter. To enter The Scientific American™ Great Consciousness Contest (the “Contest”), complete the online entry form at www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=koch-contest-fool-the-machine-consciousness (the “Website”) (including all required fields as indicated on the form), read the Official Rules, provide a link to the location on a third party image hosting site (e.g., twitpic.com, yfrog.com or flickr.com) of, a photograph or image that depicts a nonsensical scenario that could be perceived as sensible by a machine that is conscious by design but not function, as described in the Scientific American’s June 2011 article “A Test for Consciousness” (the “Article”); and click the “Submit” button. The photograph or image you submit should be created by you (but can be digitally-altered), should be a .jpg, .gif or .png file only and no larger than 4 MB and should be able to fool even the most intelligent computer into affirming that the scenario shown reflects reality. All entry information and photograph or image submissions shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Submissions” or each as a “Submission.” Sponsor reserves the right to cancel or modify this Contest in the event an insufficient number of entries are received that meet the minimum judging criteria.
By entering, each entrant warrants and represents the following with respect to their Submission: (a) entrant is the sole and exclusive owner of the Submission; (b) the Submission is entrant’s own creation and is 100% original; (c) the Submission will not infringe on any rights of any third parties; and (d) any third party whose person or property appears in the Submission has given entrant appropriate written consent (which shall be provided to Sponsor upon request thereof) for such person or property to be filmed and used as permitted herein.
All entrants must have a valid e-mail address. Limit two (2) entries per person. No automated entry devices and/or programs permitted. All entries, including Submissions, must be the exclusive property of their respective entrants. Receipt of entries will not be acknowledged or returned. Sponsor is not responsible for lost, late, illegible, stolen, incomplete, invalid, unintelligible, postage-due, misdirected, technically corrupted or garbled entries, which will be disqualified, or for problems of any kind whether mechanical, human or electronic. Only fully completed entry forms are eligible. Proof of submission will not be deemed to be proof of receipt by Sponsor.
2. Start/End Dates. Contest begins at 12:01 AM Eastern Standard Time (“EST”) on June 13, 2011 and ends at 11:59 PM ET on September 1, 2011.
3. Eligibility. Participation open only to legal residents of the fifty United States or the District of Columbia who are at least 18 years old as of date of entry. Void outside of the 50 United States and the District of Columbia and where prohibited, taxed or restricted by law. Employees, officers and directors of Nature America, Inc./Scientific American™ (“Sponsor”) and its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, dealers, advertising and promotion agencies, manufacturers or distributors of Contest materials and their immediate families (parents, children, siblings, spouse) or members of the same household (whether related or not) of such employees/officers/directors are not eligible to enter. You are not authorized to participate in the Contest if you are not located within the United States or the District of Columbia. All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply.
4. Judging/Judging Criteria. Judges reserve the right, in their sole and absolute discretion, to disqualify any Submissions that are inappropriate for any reason, including without limitation, for depicting or mentioning sex, violence, drugs, alcohol and/or inappropriate language. All Submissions will be judged by judges that have the required knowledge and experience to apply the judging criteria. By entering the Contest, entrants fully and unconditionally agree to be bound by these rules and the decisions of the judges, which will be final and binding in all matters relating to the Contest.
All Submissions will be judged by the authors of the Article on or about September 2, 2011. All Submissions will be judged based on the following equally-weighted criteria: (a) the image's depiction of a nonsensical scenario that could be perceived as sensible by a machine that is conscious by design but not function, as described in the Article; (b) creativity; and (c) aesthetic quality. Subject to verification and compliance with these Official Rules, the three (3) entrants with the highest-scoring Submissions will be awarded the prizes. In the event of a tie, the Submission with the highest criteria (a) score will break the tie.
5. Prizes. Three (3) prizes: Each winner will receive one (1) autographed copy of Dr. Cristoph Koch’s self-published book, Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. The prize winners’ Submissions will be considered for publication on the Website. Approximate retail value (“ARV”): $130.00. Total approximate retail value of all prizes combined: $390.00. Prizes are non-transferable. No substitutions or cash redemptions. In the case of unavailability of any prize, Sponsor reserves the right to substitute a prize of equal or greater value. All unspecified expenses are the responsibility of winners. Limit one (1) prize per person.
6. Notification. Winners will be notified by e-mail on or about September 8, 2011 and will be required to sign and return, where legal, an Affidavit of Eligibility, Liability/Publicity Release and/or rights transfer document within ten (10) days of prize notification. Additionally, winners may be required to obtain releases from any and all third parties appearing in their respective Submissions. If any winner is considered a minor in his/her jurisdiction of residence, Affidavit of Eligibility, Liability/Publicity and rights transfer document must be signed by his/her parent or legal guardian and prize will be delivered to and awarded in the name of minor’s parent/legal guardian. If any winner cannot be contacted within five (5) calendar days of first notification attempt, if any prize or prize notification is returned as undeliverable, if any winner rejects his/her prize or in the event of noncompliance with these Contest rules and requirements, such prize will be forfeited and may be awarded to the Submission with the next highest score. Upon prize forfeiture, no compensation will be given.
7. Conditions. Sponsor shall not be liable or responsible in the event any winner’s Submission is not used for any reason. Submissions may be cut, edited, reformatted, rearranged, combined with other materials and/or otherwise modified, in Sponsor’s sole and absolute discretion. Any and all federal, state and local taxes are the sole responsibility of the winners. Participation in Contest and acceptance of prize constitutes each winner’s and each entrant’s permission for Sponsor to use his/her name, address (city and state), likeness, photograph, picture, portrait, voice, biographical information, Submission and/or any statements made by each winner or entrant regarding the Contest or Sponsor for advertising and promotional purposes without notice or additional compensation, except where prohibited by law. By participating, entrants and winners agree to release, indemnify and hold harmless Sponsor, its partners and promotion and advertising agencies and each of their respective parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, representatives, agents, successors, assigns, employees, officers and directors (collectively, the “Released Entities”), from any and all liability, for loss, harm, damage, injury, cost or expense whatsoever including without limitation, property damage, personal injury and/or death which may occur in connection with, preparation for, travel to, or participation in Contest, or possession, acceptance and/or use or misuse of prize or participation in any Contest-related activity and for any claims based on publicity rights, defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, trademark infringement or any other intellectual property-related cause of action. Entrants who do not comply with these Official Rules, or attempt to interfere with this Contest in any way shall be disqualified. Sponsor is not responsible if Contest cannot take place or if any prize cannot be awarded due to travel cancellations, delays or interruptions due to acts of God, acts of war, natural disasters, weather or acts of terrorism.
8. Additional Terms. Any attempted form of entry other than as set forth in Section 1 above is prohibited; no automatic, programmed; robotic or similar means of entry are permitted. The Released Entities are not responsible for technical, hardware, software, telephone or other communications malfunctions, errors or failures of any kind, lost or unavailable network connections, the Website or any third party website, Internet, or ISP availability, unauthorized human intervention, traffic congestion, incomplete or inaccurate capture of entry information (regardless of cause) or failed, incomplete, garbled, jumbled or delayed computer transmissions which may limit one’s ability to enter the Contest, including any injury or damage to entrant’s or any other person’s computer relating to or resulting from participating in this Contest or downloading any materials in this Contest. Sponsor reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel, terminate, modify, extend or suspend this Contest should (in its sole discretion) virus, bugs, non-authorized human intervention, fraud or other causes beyond its control corrupt or affect the administration, security, fairness or proper conduct of the Contest. In such case, Sponsor may select the winners from all eligible entries received prior to and/or after (if appropriate) the action taken by Sponsor. Sponsor reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to disqualify any individual it finds, in its sole discretion, to be tampering with the entry process or the operation of the Contest or the Website. Sponsor may prohibit an entrant from participating in the Contest or winning a prize if, in its sole discretion, it determines that said entrant is attempting to undermine the legitimate operation of the Contest by cheating, hacking, deception, or other unfair playing practices (including the use of automated quick entry programs) or intending to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any other entrants or Sponsor representatives.
CAUTION: ANY ATTEMPT BY AN ENTRANT TO DELIBERATELY DAMAGE ANY WEBSITE OR UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMATE OPERATION OF THE CONTEST MAY BE A VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS AND SHOULD SUCH AN ATTEMPT BE MADE, THE SPONSOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK DAMAGES FROM ANY SUCH PERSON TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
9. Limitation of Liability; Disclaimer of Warranties. IN NO EVENT WILL THE RELEASED ENTITIES BE RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSSES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICE AND/OR THE CONTEST, DOWNLOADING FROM AND/OR PRINTING MATERIAL DOWNLOADED FROM ANY WEBSITES ASSOCIATES WITH THE CONTEST. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE RELEASED ENTITIES’ TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ALL DAMAGES, LOSSES, OR CAUSES OF ACTION EXCEED $10. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, THIS CONTEST AND ALL PRIZES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. SOME JURISDICTIONS MAY NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATIONS OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES SO SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS OR EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAWS FOR ANY RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS REGARDING THESE LIMITATIONS OR EXCLUSIONS.
10. Disputes; Governing Law. The parties waive all rights to trial in any action or proceeding instituted in connection with these Official Rules, including, without limitation, the Contest. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to these Official Rules and/or the Contest shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. Any such controversy or claim shall be arbitrated on an individual basis, and shall not be consolidated in any arbitration with any claim or controversy of any other party. The arbitration shall be conducted in the State of New York, City of New York.
THESE OFFICIAL RULES AND THE INTERPRETATION OF ITS TERMS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS CONFLICTS OF LAWS RULES. For any matters which are not subject to arbitration as set forth in these Official Rules and/or in connection with the entering of any judgment on an arbitration award in connection with these Official Rules and/or the Contest, the parties irrevocably submit and consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in or closest to the County of New York in the State of New York. The parties agree not to raise the defense of forum non conveniens.
11. Use of Data. Sponsor will be collecting personal data about entrants online, in accordance with its privacy policy. Please review the Sponsor’s privacy policy at http://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=privacy. By participating in the Contest, entrants hereby agree to Sponsor’s collection and usage of their personal information and acknowledge that they have read and accepted Sponsor’s privacy policy.
12. List of Winners. To obtain a list of winners, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope by November 15, 2011 to: Nature America, Inc./Scientific American™, 75 Varick Street, New York, NY 10013.
13. Sponsor. Nature America, Inc./Scientific American™, 75 Varick Street, New York, NY 10013.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentI believe that motivation is one of the dimensions that must be measured when assessing consciousness. A machine that solves a problem simply because it is asked doesn't prove consciousness to me. I would first expect the machine to ask "What's in it for me?" if it is truly conscious. Once motivation has been established, and we know that the machine has needs that must be met, then we need to see if it tell a lie to get what it wants. I have always thought that a machine will display that it is conscious and self aware when it lies for the purpose of it's own benefit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCouldn't this test be passed by using object recognition software, combined with database containing information about how objects are related to each other? Admittedly object recognition software would have to be a lot better than the current state of the art. The test may also suffer from a large number of false negatives. An artificial consciousness would have no need of an LCD display or a keyboard, so replacing a keyboard with a plant might make perfect sense, and the pictures would only work on a human if the human had experience of the things in the pictures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever I guess there may be some connection between the 'imagination' needed in an object recognition system, and the ability of a conscious mind to ask original questions.
A small child would also see nothing wrong with a doctored photo that an adult would find phoney. So is a small child lacking consciousness? As pointed out above, a good object-recognition program, and a suffiently large library of object associations would foil the authors' theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy take: A computer would be conscious when it independently studies and interacts with its environment with the purpose of self-preservation.
My hunch is that consciousness requires neurochemicals: some kind of drugs or chemicals, otherwise it is a calculator. Consciousness seems to be made by a very complex information processing computer, plus, certain chemicals to make emotions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-I suppose it's not just the information processing, but the emotions added to that which creates consciousness (the most important phenomenon)
For those who can't see the 'Submit' button. Simply press CTRL+ or Command+ to increase the font size of the browser. It is located at the bottom of the form and hidden in a frame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does this scenario POSSIBLY imply consciousness? The fact that a computer can identify whether a picture is "sensible" or not rests purely on a function of the probabilistic nature of various scenarios that the computer generates from a mathematical model. Creating a process modeling behavior does NOT necessarily entail or prove the consciousness of a system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to understand why Koch's scheme is meaningless, we must imagine such a system in the simplest terms. Imagine a hypothetical system with a camera, a color processor, and three light switches (one red, one yellow, one violet). The system is built such that the camera is constantly running. When a certain portion of the scene in front of the camera is the color red, or colors close on the light spectrum, go in front of the screen, the processor immediately detects this and sends an electrical signal to the red light, which turns on. The same process follows for the yellow and the violet light as well. Each light is also set to dim as the colors in the scene in front of the camera "fall" away from its primary color, such that the red light is brightest when the scene in front of the camera is red, slightly dimmer when the scene is orange, and completely off when yellow. This is true of the other two lights as well. Now, how does our optical system work? In precisely the same way. Yet most would certainly not say that this system alone somehow has consciousness solely due to its color identification. What gives us an edge over this system is intentionality, something that any computer system thus far, mine and Koch's creation included, lack. No, pure mathematical processes are at work in spectral analysis, and moreover scene identification. We would not say that my system has any "knowledge" of colors, more than Koch's system has "knowledge" of the world. All that Koch's system is is a more complex version of my color identifying system. This is not to say that I'm arguing that Koch's system DOESN'T have consciousness, for it certainly could. I'm merely saying that his system does not PROVE it in any fashion.
I agree with Samwise - has the researcher spent much time looking into the history of AI in computing? I don't see how his test implies consciousness, and it seems that he is equating consciousness with knowledge representation. With enough knowledge and rules of behaviour, any machine should be able to pick absurd situations, but this isn't really conscious behaviour anymore than an expert system is conscious, or industrial plant monitoring software is conscious if it detects a possible fault condition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the Cyc project for example, as an effort in that direction, but the Cyc people don't believe that giving a machine their knowledge base will make it conscious, just able to interact more meaningfully with humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
I have no definition of consciousness, but agree with an earlier comment that intention and motivations should have something to do with it. A machine with some kind of instinct (like a need to find a power point when its batteries run low), would seem to demonstrate more consciousness to me, than an expert system with a camera. Why should a machine need to be concerned with the human world, like men in business suits, to be considered conscious?
This project from ~1970 demonstrates the style of "consciousness" that this test is seeking, except that the world is more limited, and the computer lacks a camera and vision interpretation. But then so does a blind woman.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://hci.stanford.edu/~winograd/shrdlu/
I can easily devise a picture which will prove that a system is having conscious phenomenal experiences. It will overcome all objections based on such piffling problems as the possibility of p-zombies, the application of Ockham's Razor and even Rosenberg/Shoemaker's "knowledge paradox". But the prize is a bit rubbish so I'm not going to enter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this: - )
There are a lot of pictures of that kind at www-worth1000-com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect the problem of consciousness might simply be a quantitative one, since the problem of processing information has been largely solved. It is hard to imagine the amount of data that the human mind processes in parallel but based on a strict sequence of responses of environment. There are 5 senses sending a solid stream of information into the human brain 24 hours a day every day. Sleep time is even more active since the information is not sensory, but synthetic, that is combinations and permutations based on relevance to previously stored information. That is what consciousness is based on. It is important to note too that at least 50% of this information is not based on external information, but internal information based on the qualia of internal dynamics, mental states, emotions and internal sensations such as pain and pleasure, as well as reactions and strategies to deal with the latter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the quantitative problem is indeed formidable. The only solution I have been able to come up with would have been to enlist an army of programmers to digitize the typical inputs for small sections of the human experience: such as the first weeks of life, the first fall and the problems of balance, storing sounds and relating them to appropriate experiences, then doing the same for various sensory experiences etc... That is the route I would go, but it is a formidable proposition, and the only hope we would have of tackling it, I believe, would be to put the computers themselves to work on the actual gathering and storing of information, themselves, using humans for directions only.
Let's suppose you actually got a lot of funny, unreal images. And that someone implements a powerful system that rejects those images as a typical adult human would do. Then, you'd only prove that the system is good at image recognition and real-world knowledge. But how can anyone dare to infer that such a system had consciousness, i.e. subjective experience, qualia, intentionality?, you name it. Well, let's go a step ahead, and let's imagine that the system is given the possibility of "expressing itself", a kind of "spontaneous talking", and that it at some time says that it's feeling like some kind of consciousness (and, why not, that it's bored about the experiment!). Let's imagine how could the system be programmed in order for such a statement to be reliable. A computer program can only act from a number of deterministic checks on its data. So, someone can imagine that a positive result of a complex database query is any a proof of consciousness? You can say: we don't know how to build such a system, however, we know it's conscious but it can't tell. A very weak position, because you'd then be admitting that you can't prove what you affirm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive us a break! Such mind experiments can't distinguish a machine from a person. To judge that this image is incorrect, both a person and a machine "would need to be conscious of many things about the world as well (unless programmed for just such a photograph)".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see how this experiment will be be able to test for "consciousness," depending on how you define consciousness, but I do see that it will be able to test for "understanding." A person may see something previously completely novel and understand that it is not something that happens commonly. But after seeing it a few times, it becomes familiar. That is the result of experience, not of ordinary database searches, and not the result of analyzing what things might be found together. So to make a computer that has experience and understanding, you have to give it a robot body and let it experience the world, just like a newborn baby. That is not likely to happen, so the next best thing is to give it informational inputs from the life of a normal human being. Then it can integrate every new input with all previous inputs and build a model of what is possible, and what is likely, and what is unusual. But what it is not likely to be able to do is to build a model of what is impossible, because it will never see the impossible, and it will never know whether what it never sees is really impossible or simply unlikely. I think that is exactly what humans do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe humans look at a picture and detect novelty, but not necessarily what is nonsensical or impossible. I look at the picture of the guy above the terrain and think he is very calmly falling toward the ground. Maybe he will die, or maybe he has a special kind of parachute, or maybe the person who took his picture has a spare parachute for him. That is novel, not nonsensical, and I can create a rational explanation for it. A computer with a potted plant in front would likewise be unusual but not nonsensical. It may be cleaning day or moving day and the plant is simply out of its normal place. But there are things that I have seen that I could truly not understand at all on first viewing, and then I felt strongly disoriented and very scared until I was able to make sense of what I was seeing.
Note that I was fully conscious of the unexplainable experience but could not not understand it, and that reinforces my view that this experiment would test for understanding, not consciousness.
I'm unimpressed by this, it's just a complex analogue of spotting an incorrect equation, "1+1=4".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are arguably the only beings capable of making a mistake (C.Jenkins). By extension, one could test for sense of humour (which would have a great secondary advantage on many, many sites).
"What is 4? a)2axs b)2*2 c)2&2 d)2+2"
Any computer-proof test of humanity would have to use this principle, or some other element outside of computerizable space.
Perhaps better to ask for a solution to the four-colour problem.
If user produces a spotless proof, it fail the human test.
So if you put a real dog or a real cat or a real bear in front of those pictures would they know what is wrong with them? No, so does that mean a dog, cat and bear aren't conscious? What a stupid experiment. Its assuming consciousness on a level of human intelligence not consciousness itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if you put a real dog or a real cat or a real bear in front of those pictures would they know what is wrong with them? No, so does that mean a dog, cat and bear aren't conscious? What a stupid experiment. Its assuming consciousness on a level of human intelligence not consciousness itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this