3 ms·
The key error in the argument is here: "[T]he only reason we call a box with a CPU in it a “computer” is because we happen to have a simple mapping between the
by pdonis 4y ago
The key error in the argument is here:
"[T]he only reason we call a box with a CPU in it a “computer” is because we happen to have a simple mapping between the voltage levels across different parts of the CPU to a set of bits we have defined, and when these voltages interact they do so according to the rules of a set of logical operations which we have also defined. But there is no meaning to the physical system apart from what we, as external observers, have imposed on it."
This might be an argument against a computer program with no inputs or outputs being conscious. But it is not at all an argument against a robot with a computer brain, hooked up to inputs and outputs in a way somewhat similar to a human brain, being conscious. In fact, one way of stating the position of physicalists about consciousness is simply that we humans are such robots! We have brains that compute things (granted, our brains do it with analog neurons, chemicals, etc. instead of digital circuits, but that doesn't mean what our brains are doing is not computation), but the things our brains compute have semantics because our brains are hooked up to inputs and outputs.
In other words, the whole article is attacking a straw man. The actual substantive point of the article is not that consciousness is not computation, but that for computation to produce consciousness, it has to have semantics--it has to be hooked up to iputs and outputs in a non-trivial way. Which is certainly not easy, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
- enragedcacti 4y agoThere are documented cases of people in comas/full paralysis who later wake up and remember being conscious throughout the coma. If they never woke up to tell anyone about it (or died before they had the chance to wake up) would they not have been conscious? We can of course observe that there is brain activity to some degree but I'm not sure that we would consider that output in a meaningful way anymore than something like side-channel analysis of a CPU. Further, who determines what inputs/outputs qualify as semantic? That would either require an outside observer (breaking the model of "I think therefore I am") or require the system itself to determine semantic value at which point there's no need for I/O to make the determination.
- undersuit 4y agoIs a computer not computing if it's not outputting? If I'm thinking for an extended period of time without telling other "people" my thoughts am I actually thinking? If a tree falls in a forest, and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
- pdonis 4y ago> If they never woke up to tell anyone about it (or died before they had the chance to wake up) would they not have been conscious? This is an edge case where one could say the person was (or might have been) conscious but nobody else ever got the chance to find out. In any concept like this we should expect edge cases. > who determines what inputs/outputs qualify as semantic? The function of the inputs/outputs in the overall function of the entity and how it relates to the rest of the world.