4 ms·

I'm not sure that will ever be possible. Consciousness produces logic as a tool to use. Logic does not produce consciousness. Computers, by definition, are pu

I'm not sure that will ever be possible. Consciousness produces logic as a tool to use. Logic does not produce consciousness. Computers, by definition, are pure logic and rules. You can use logic to mimic consciousness, but nothing more.

iamwil 15y ago
Just because you have simple rules doesn't mean you can't get complex behaviors. Multi-threaded applications using locks and mutexes have bugs that never happen the same way twice, which is why they're so notoriously hard to debug. Large systems with lots of parts (like huge websites with multiple backends) will exhibit failure behavior we can't predict even though at the very basic level, all computers are predictable. It's only manageable at that scale because we work hard to design it to be predictable. There are a lot of complex and emergent systems that demonstrate this property of following simple rules but exhibiting complex behaviors. Conway's game of life, rule 110 in basic cellular automata, how ants work together, fireflies blink in synchrony without global communication are all examples. And while none of these demonstrate that computers can produce consciousness, they give a hint that computers may be able to do so, despite it following rules to the T.
valisystem 15y ago
> use logic to mimic consciousness And AFAIK, we don't even know if it's computable.
maeon3 15y ago
YOU are pure logic and rules, come on over to my house, I will slice your brain up into disks a few molecules thick, and create a 3D molecular model of your brain. What I will find is not magic in meat, what I will find is vast arrays of interconnected systems, which is no different than had I sliced up your computer and made a 3D model of that. I find your superstition disturbing.
leejw00t354 15y ago
Are brains neural connections are equivalent to that of a computers software. If our brains can produce consciousness there is no physical reason we know of why a computer can't be conscious. How do you know if everyone around you is conscious? You just assume they are, because you are. In reality you have no way of telling. The interesting thing about this post is that the robot believes it is human, because it believes it is conscious. If it acts in a way that we recognise as conscious and tell us it is, at this point we have just as much evidence for believing the robot is conscious as we do for every human.
haberman 15y ago
> Logic does not produce consciousness. Considering we have no falsifiable theory about what does produce consciousness, I don't see how you could possibly claim this. You can't prove that you are conscious, nor can anybody else. I can perceive my own consciousness but I can't rigorously explain it. We have no way of determining if this alleged "consciousness" is a spectrum or binary. We can't test which life-forms are conscious and which are not. We can observe behaviors in animals that seem to imply consciousness, but is a dog conscious, or an insect, or an amoeba? We don't know. And furthermore, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that there was no consciousness and then consciousness at some point was created where there was none before. If logic doesn't produce consciousness, what does produce it? And whatever produced it in cellular tissue millions of years ago, who's to say we couldn't likewise produce it in a die of silicon, which like our brains is highly electrical?
- haliax 15y ago
  > And furthermore, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that there was no consciousness Actually, you don't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
Dn_Ab 15y ago
It remains to be seen if consciousness is even useful if your goal is to maximize intelligence. I could go on in more depth but only if someone cares to hear my thoughts on the topic. But I will leave this: What do Expertise, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) and the advise to go for a walk or sleep on a problem have (or downplay) in common? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_...
mikeash 15y ago
How do you know any of this is true?
loup-vaillant 15y ago
What you are talking about is called a "philosophical zombie". http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Philosophical_zombie http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Philosophical_zombie (I strongly recommend you follow some links.)
batista 15y ago
Consciousness produces logic as a tool to use. Logic does not produce consciousness. This statement is not proved (and maybe not provable at all, not to mention probably untrue). Also, have you considered the possibility a THIRD factor besides logic/consciousness (like information complexity, feedback loops etc) to produce BOTH consciousness and logic? Computers, by definition, are pure logic and rules. You can use logic to mimic consciousness, but nothing more. Who proved that, when and how? This is just a circular (vicious) argument, especially as denoted by the "by definition" part.
dedward 15y ago
if that mimicry is indistinguishable from a human, then by definition it is as sentient as a human.... thatsthepoint.

iamwil 15y ago

Just because you have simple rules doesn't mean you can't get complex behaviors. Multi-threaded applications using locks and mutexes have bugs that never happen the same way twice, which is why they're so notoriously hard to debug. Large systems with lots of parts (like huge websites with multiple backends) will exhibit failure behavior we can't predict even though at the very basic level, all computers are predictable. It's only manageable at that scale because we work hard to design it to be predictable. There are a lot of complex and emergent systems that demonstrate this property of following simple rules but exhibiting complex behaviors. Conway's game of life, rule 110 in basic cellular automata, how ants work together, fireflies blink in synchrony without global communication are all examples. And while none of these demonstrate that computers can produce consciousness, they give a hint that computers may be able to do so, despite it following rules to the T.

valisystem 15y ago

> use logic to mimic consciousness And AFAIK, we don't even know if it's computable.

maeon3 15y ago

YOU are pure logic and rules, come on over to my house, I will slice your brain up into disks a few molecules thick, and create a 3D molecular model of your brain. What I will find is not magic in meat, what I will find is vast arrays of interconnected systems, which is no different than had I sliced up your computer and made a 3D model of that. I find your superstition disturbing.

leejw00t354 15y ago

Are brains neural connections are equivalent to that of a computers software. If our brains can produce consciousness there is no physical reason we know of why a computer can't be conscious. How do you know if everyone around you is conscious? You just assume they are, because you are. In reality you have no way of telling. The interesting thing about this post is that the robot believes it is human, because it believes it is conscious. If it acts in a way that we recognise as conscious and tell us it is, at this point we have just as much evidence for believing the robot is conscious as we do for every human.

haberman 15y ago

> Logic does not produce consciousness. Considering we have no falsifiable theory about what does produce consciousness, I don't see how you could possibly claim this. You can't prove that you are conscious, nor can anybody else. I can perceive my own consciousness but I can't rigorously explain it. We have no way of determining if this alleged "consciousness" is a spectrum or binary. We can't test which life-forms are conscious and which are not. We can observe behaviors in animals that seem to imply consciousness, but is a dog conscious, or an insect, or an amoeba? We don't know. And furthermore, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that there was no consciousness and then consciousness at some point was created where there was none before. If logic doesn't produce consciousness, what does produce it? And whatever produced it in cellular tissue millions of years ago, who's to say we couldn't likewise produce it in a die of silicon, which like our brains is highly electrical?

haliax 15y ago
> And furthermore, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that there was no consciousness Actually, you don't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

Dn_Ab 15y ago

It remains to be seen if consciousness is even useful if your goal is to maximize intelligence. I could go on in more depth but only if someone cares to hear my thoughts on the topic. But I will leave this: What do Expertise, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) and the advise to go for a walk or sleep on a problem have (or downplay) in common? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_...

mikeash 15y ago

How do you know any of this is true?

loup-vaillant 15y ago

What you are talking about is called a "philosophical zombie". http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Philosophical_zombie http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Philosophical_zombie (I strongly recommend you follow some links.)

batista 15y ago

Consciousness produces logic as a tool to use. Logic does not produce consciousness. This statement is not proved (and maybe not provable at all, not to mention probably untrue). Also, have you considered the possibility a THIRD factor besides logic/consciousness (like information complexity, feedback loops etc) to produce BOTH consciousness and logic? Computers, by definition, are pure logic and rules. You can use logic to mimic consciousness, but nothing more. Who proved that, when and how? This is just a circular (vicious) argument, especially as denoted by the "by definition" part.

dedward 15y ago

if that mimicry is indistinguishable from a human, then by definition it is as sentient as a human.... thatsthepoint.