17 ms·

I'm having a hard time with your argument. Some things jump out: The only data that could ever be provided would be a very limited set, namely, to the external

by smosher 15y ago

I'm having a hard time with your argument. Some things jump out: The only data that could ever be provided would be a very limited set, namely, to the external behaviors. - This isn't true at all. We slice open brains to find out how they work. We stick things in them to measure and stimulate them. One fellow even had a camera installed to produce phosphenes via electrodes on his visual cortex. Science has gone well beyond external behaviours. (We are talking about the mechanics of brains here, so B. F. Skinner doesn't get an invitation. Once the brain simulation is running and babbling then he can psychoanalyze it all he likes.) Consciousness as an object isn't even a scientific entity, - That's good news, not bad. If it's not a scientific entity, we don't have to worry about it or hold it up to scientific scrutiny. Similarly we can stave off worrying about whether it has a soul, and which God it belongs to should it in fact have a soul--whatever that means. but what people really want to get at is consciousness, and the brain without that is probably not the problem most people have in mind. So one could simulate the brain but only on a very restricted very of what a brain is. - A brain is whatever science says it is. The word you want to (and are free to) play with is consciousness. For maximum convenience, you may define it as the quality a brain produced by sexual human reproduction has and that which an artificial brain made by humans has not. Whatever it is it makes us very special indeed! There was more sarcasm there than I would have liked, but I can't resist. So I apologize, but I hope you see my point: arguing that a simulation is impossible because of some mysterious scientific non-entity is simply not a scientifically valid argument. (Bio-/electro-)mechanically speaking there is no known inherent barrier to simulation. Roger Penrose likes the idea that there is some sort of quantum entanglement responsible for human consciousness but it's not supported and he's having a hard time even demonstrating that his specific claims are possible. So for now, I am happy to assume that (robust, human-like) brain simulation is possible in principle. I don't know, of course, and I probably will not live to see it. Then again, computing is a runaway train and there are some compelling players in the simulation field at this time--so who knows?

henrikschroder 15y ago
Consciousness as an object isn't even a scientific entity, - That's good news, not bad. If it's not a scientific entity, we don't have to worry about it or hold it up to scientific scrutiny. Similarly we can stave off worrying about whether it has a soul, and which God it belongs to should it in fact have a soul--whatever that means. Ah, but this is the crux of the Chinese Room argument. You're saying that since we can't measure it or detect it, it doesn't exist, and therefore isn't important. When you have a brain simulation going and having a conversation with it, that's enough for you. It says it's conscious, and we can't measure consciousness, therefore it is conscious. I disagree. Strongly. That brain simulation is a zombie. The man in the room does not speak Chinese. But we'll see. I actually think we will, Kurzweil might be somewhat of a crackpot with his singularity, but his extrapolations of increases in processing power say that we'll have the power to simulate a human brain in a pocket-sized thing in 2030-something, and the power to simulate all of humanity in 2040-something. I'll be around 60 years old then, and hopefully still sticking around. :-)
- henrikschroder 15y ago
  (Brilliant, this is the second time I argue against strong AI here, and only received downvotes instead of comments. That's not how this place is supposed to work.)
- gosub 15y ago
  You're saying that since we can't measure it or detect it, it doesn't exist, and therefore isn't important If you can't measure it or detect it, how would you know it's there and it's the source of the phenomenon? If I tell you that it's not consciousness but magic pixie dust, invisible and non-detectable magic pixie dust, would you start searching for Neverland?
  - henrikschroder 15y ago
    I am conscious. I experience being conscious every waking hour of my life. I don't know why, I can't objectively describe the experience of it, but I know it is there. I can't speak for you, but given that we're of the same species, I'm gonna assume that you are conscious like me. Conscious machines? No, that'll require a lot more convincing than a song and a dance.
    - gosub 15y ago
      I don't understand. Is consciousness a feeling or an external manifestation? It's something purely internal or something also visible on the outside? If it's only internal you cannot, by defition, say if a machine is conscious, but also every other human. If tomorrow we would discover an alien civilization and start a meaningful communication, would you question their consciousness? Personally, I don't think that all the discussion about consciousness is meaningful. Consciousness could be the human feeling of abstract reasoning, like cold is the human feeling of registering a lower temperature. A machine could reproduce abstract reasoning, and asking about its consciousness would be like asking if a thermostat feels cold.
- smosher 15y ago
  You're saying that ... No, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm arguing the scientific facts of the matter, and I believe I did a good job of making my personal beliefs and opinions separately. It's especially important to note that my treatment of the term "consciousness" was predicated on the given assumption that it is not a scientific entity. At the moment the term has a handful of scientific meanings, but none are what people are after. My argument is that you can't argue meaningfully about it until you can define it meaningfully. P.S. What do you mean by "zombie" -? Traditionally it means something different than what I think you mean by it.

by smosher 15y ago

henrikschroder 15y ago

Consciousness as an object isn't even a scientific entity, - That's good news, not bad. If it's not a scientific entity, we don't have to worry about it or hold it up to scientific scrutiny. Similarly we can stave off worrying about whether it has a soul, and which God it belongs to should it in fact have a soul--whatever that means. Ah, but this is the crux of the Chinese Room argument. You're saying that since we can't measure it or detect it, it doesn't exist, and therefore isn't important. When you have a brain simulation going and having a conversation with it, that's enough for you. It says it's conscious, and we can't measure consciousness, therefore it is conscious. I disagree. Strongly. That brain simulation is a zombie. The man in the room does not speak Chinese. But we'll see. I actually think we will, Kurzweil might be somewhat of a crackpot with his singularity, but his extrapolations of increases in processing power say that we'll have the power to simulate a human brain in a pocket-sized thing in 2030-something, and the power to simulate all of humanity in 2040-something. I'll be around 60 years old then, and hopefully still sticking around. :-)

henrikschroder 15y ago
(Brilliant, this is the second time I argue against strong AI here, and only received downvotes instead of comments. That's not how this place is supposed to work.)
gosub 15y ago
You're saying that since we can't measure it or detect it, it doesn't exist, and therefore isn't important If you can't measure it or detect it, how would you know it's there and it's the source of the phenomenon? If I tell you that it's not consciousness but magic pixie dust, invisible and non-detectable magic pixie dust, would you start searching for Neverland?
- henrikschroder 15y ago
  I am conscious. I experience being conscious every waking hour of my life. I don't know why, I can't objectively describe the experience of it, but I know it is there. I can't speak for you, but given that we're of the same species, I'm gonna assume that you are conscious like me. Conscious machines? No, that'll require a lot more convincing than a song and a dance.
  - gosub 15y ago
    I don't understand. Is consciousness a feeling or an external manifestation? It's something purely internal or something also visible on the outside? If it's only internal you cannot, by defition, say if a machine is conscious, but also every other human. If tomorrow we would discover an alien civilization and start a meaningful communication, would you question their consciousness? Personally, I don't think that all the discussion about consciousness is meaningful. Consciousness could be the human feeling of abstract reasoning, like cold is the human feeling of registering a lower temperature. A machine could reproduce abstract reasoning, and asking about its consciousness would be like asking if a thermostat feels cold.
smosher 15y ago
You're saying that ... No, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm arguing the scientific facts of the matter, and I believe I did a good job of making my personal beliefs and opinions separately. It's especially important to note that my treatment of the term "consciousness" was predicated on the given assumption that it is not a scientific entity. At the moment the term has a handful of scientific meanings, but none are what people are after. My argument is that you can't argue meaningfully about it until you can define it meaningfully. P.S. What do you mean by "zombie" -? Traditionally it means something different than what I think you mean by it.