3 ms·

I am dead certain that it would NOT be possible to achieve consciousness in a computer program. On the other hand, I know if I ever had to debate this question

by drcode 17y ago

I am dead certain that it would NOT be possible to achieve consciousness in a computer program. On the other hand, I know if I ever had to debate this question with Daniel Dennett or Eliezer Yudkowsky or any other capable person who believes there's nothing special about "consciousness" I would lose the debate. Attributing a special meaning to consciousness, on the surface, is just as illogical as believing in religion- Neither seems to have a valid defense, as far as I can tell. Therefore, I find it disquieting that I DON'T believe in religion but DO feel so certain that computers can't be conscious. Once you figure out the reason for this apparent inconsistency in my belief system, please let me know :)

dejb 17y ago
OK here's an argument for why you could be right. Whatever it is that distinguishes consciousness for what computers can possible do is also the thing that makes you realise that computers can't be conscious. If you could logically write the reason down to 'prove it' then it would also be something that you could implement in a computer. So the reason, whatever it is, has lie somewhat outside of specifiable logic. Just in case this is somehow original. I'm designating this 'thing' as a 'dejb' and calling the whole thing "dejb's theory/proposition/whatever". Although it actually probably just a restatement of Godel's incompleteness theorem. Also I actually believe that computers can be concsious.
- drcode 17y ago
  I like dejb's theory! I'll have to give it some thought.
fburnaby 17y ago
Searle is an atheistic (I think - at least he's nonreligious) philosopher who agrees with you. He argued against "functionalism" - which is pretty much the stance that most here are taking - that consciousness is a complex adaptive process, nothing "magical". However, he's just playing with your intuition, the same way you are, and his logic (though not his certainty, either, from the bit I've read) is flawed. You should read up on his "Chinese room" thought experiment yo learn why.
- ewjordan 17y ago
  Searle is an atheistic (I think - at least he's nonreligious) philosopher who agrees with you. He argued against "functionalism" - which is pretty much the stance that most here are taking - that consciousness is a complex adaptive process, nothing "magical". Now that someone brought up the S-word, I can't help but paste in one of my favorite Searle quotes (http://sss.stanford.edu/others/johnsearle/ http://sss.stanford.edu/others/johnsearle/), which to me very clearly indicates how much of a mental and logical struggle it is (and how much flubbery is required!) to attempt to justify his position: 'Could a machine think?' My own view is that only a machine could think, and indeed only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines that had the same causal powers as brains. And that is the main reason strong AI has had little to tell us about thinking, since it has nothing to tell us about machines. By its own definition, it is about programs, and programs are not machines. Whatever else intentionality is, it is a biological phenomenon, and it is as likely to be as causally dependent on the specific biochemistry of its origins as lactation, photosynthesis, or any other biological phenomena. No one would suppose that we could produce milk and sugar by running a computer simulation of the formal sequences in lactation and photosynthesis, but where the mind is concerned many people are willing to believe in such a miracle because of a deep and abiding dualism: the mind they suppose is a matter of formal processes and is independent of quite specific material causes in the way that milk and sugar are not. Even if the guy's a freaking idiot (which he is), you've gotta appreciate the way he tries to turn the "dualist" label against the people that are most opposed to dualism, while that's almost exactly what he's arguing for. He would have made a great politician; unfortunately, he's made his career arguing about something that he doesn't really understand, which is a damn shame, I hate to see so much mental energy spent fighting a lost battle...
dasil003 17y ago
I tend to agree with you, though not with so much certainty. I think the question of consciousness is fundamentally unanswerable, and I think a lot of people like to use that fact to construct arguments about how consciousness and simulation of consciousness are the same thing because they are scientifically indistinguishable. However just because a falsifiable theory can not be constructed does not mean there isn't an objective truth. This need for all beliefs to have a scientific basis is a bit pathological in my opinion. You shouldn't feel bad for believing something "illogical" if the only reason it is illogical is Occam's Razor or scientific intractability. My reasoning for this is that it should be obvious to everyone that our world and experiences are increasingly shaped by ideas in modern times. Even though physics can explain the mechanics of the universe in great detail, the way ideas affect our individual experiences and society as a whole has very little to do with their ability to be objectively classified as true or false. By forcing a scientific perspective you are limiting yourself from the benefits of philosophies and ideas that are beyond the realm of science. I'm not saying that a belief about artificial consciousness is beneficial one way or the other, but just that you shouldn't be chided into dismissing your own opinion just because it does not rest on firm logical conclusions based on established scientific evidence. The other side is quite wobbly as well.
chris11 17y ago
I agree with you in that consciousness does really see ill defined. But I don't think that would stop a computer program from achieving consciousness. Even with consciousness being so ill defined I'd say that there are a few points that we can agree on. For one, even if peoples definitions and expectations of consciousness differ, we can all find examples of life that we agree are conscious. The boundary may be really fuzzy. We might disagree whether animals are conscious or brain-dead/comatose are conscious. But we could probably find a case that we agreed on. And once we assume that I would ask you whether a computer program would ever be able to pass the Turing test and convince us that it was conscious. If a computer program would be able to pass I'd argue that it was conscious, since consciousness seems to me to be totally subjectively defined. If you say that a program would not be able to pass, I might agree with you intuitively, but I would question it intellectually. Because I've always believed that there are cases that are definitely perceived as conscious by other people. I would be shocked if someone truly believed that the person next to me is somehow not conscious. So the next question I would ask is whether consciousness resides and arises from something that can be explained scientifically. Or to put it simply: Can we describe,now or in the future, the workings of the brain? If so, I really don't think we would need a scientific explanation for any epiphenomenon such as consciousness, all we would need to is recreate those initial conditions and we should be able to mimic consciousness. If you say that we won't be able to mimic the workings of the human brain I'd simply say that you are making the statement that there is physical phenomena that can never ever be explained by science. If you say that even if we recreate a human brain, we will never mimic consciousness, then I'd reply that you are saying that my personal definition of consciousness not affected and defined by other peoples definition of consciousness. I think that might be why you see an inconsistency between attributing a special meaning to consciousness and and religion. We instinctively act like the human race can find common ground on the definition of consciousness. We don't instinctively act like we can find common ground on religious beliefs.

by drcode 17y ago

dejb 17y ago

OK here's an argument for why you could be right. Whatever it is that distinguishes consciousness for what computers can possible do is also the thing that makes you realise that computers can't be conscious. If you could logically write the reason down to 'prove it' then it would also be something that you could implement in a computer. So the reason, whatever it is, has lie somewhat outside of specifiable logic. Just in case this is somehow original. I'm designating this 'thing' as a 'dejb' and calling the whole thing "dejb's theory/proposition/whatever". Although it actually probably just a restatement of Godel's incompleteness theorem. Also I actually believe that computers can be concsious.

drcode 17y ago
I like dejb's theory! I'll have to give it some thought.

fburnaby 17y ago

Searle is an atheistic (I think - at least he's nonreligious) philosopher who agrees with you. He argued against "functionalism" - which is pretty much the stance that most here are taking - that consciousness is a complex adaptive process, nothing "magical". However, he's just playing with your intuition, the same way you are, and his logic (though not his certainty, either, from the bit I've read) is flawed. You should read up on his "Chinese room" thought experiment yo learn why.

ewjordan 17y ago
Searle is an atheistic (I think - at least he's nonreligious) philosopher who agrees with you. He argued against "functionalism" - which is pretty much the stance that most here are taking - that consciousness is a complex adaptive process, nothing "magical". Now that someone brought up the S-word, I can't help but paste in one of my favorite Searle quotes (http://sss.stanford.edu/others/johnsearle/ http://sss.stanford.edu/others/johnsearle/), which to me very clearly indicates how much of a mental and logical struggle it is (and how much flubbery is required!) to attempt to justify his position: 'Could a machine think?' My own view is that only a machine could think, and indeed only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines that had the same causal powers as brains. And that is the main reason strong AI has had little to tell us about thinking, since it has nothing to tell us about machines. By its own definition, it is about programs, and programs are not machines. Whatever else intentionality is, it is a biological phenomenon, and it is as likely to be as causally dependent on the specific biochemistry of its origins as lactation, photosynthesis, or any other biological phenomena. No one would suppose that we could produce milk and sugar by running a computer simulation of the formal sequences in lactation and photosynthesis, but where the mind is concerned many people are willing to believe in such a miracle because of a deep and abiding dualism: the mind they suppose is a matter of formal processes and is independent of quite specific material causes in the way that milk and sugar are not. Even if the guy's a freaking idiot (which he is), you've gotta appreciate the way he tries to turn the "dualist" label against the people that are most opposed to dualism, while that's almost exactly what he's arguing for. He would have made a great politician; unfortunately, he's made his career arguing about something that he doesn't really understand, which is a damn shame, I hate to see so much mental energy spent fighting a lost battle...

dasil003 17y ago

I tend to agree with you, though not with so much certainty. I think the question of consciousness is fundamentally unanswerable, and I think a lot of people like to use that fact to construct arguments about how consciousness and simulation of consciousness are the same thing because they are scientifically indistinguishable. However just because a falsifiable theory can not be constructed does not mean there isn't an objective truth. This need for all beliefs to have a scientific basis is a bit pathological in my opinion. You shouldn't feel bad for believing something "illogical" if the only reason it is illogical is Occam's Razor or scientific intractability. My reasoning for this is that it should be obvious to everyone that our world and experiences are increasingly shaped by ideas in modern times. Even though physics can explain the mechanics of the universe in great detail, the way ideas affect our individual experiences and society as a whole has very little to do with their ability to be objectively classified as true or false. By forcing a scientific perspective you are limiting yourself from the benefits of philosophies and ideas that are beyond the realm of science. I'm not saying that a belief about artificial consciousness is beneficial one way or the other, but just that you shouldn't be chided into dismissing your own opinion just because it does not rest on firm logical conclusions based on established scientific evidence. The other side is quite wobbly as well.

chris11 17y ago

I agree with you in that consciousness does really see ill defined. But I don't think that would stop a computer program from achieving consciousness. Even with consciousness being so ill defined I'd say that there are a few points that we can agree on. For one, even if peoples definitions and expectations of consciousness differ, we can all find examples of life that we agree are conscious. The boundary may be really fuzzy. We might disagree whether animals are conscious or brain-dead/comatose are conscious. But we could probably find a case that we agreed on. And once we assume that I would ask you whether a computer program would ever be able to pass the Turing test and convince us that it was conscious. If a computer program would be able to pass I'd argue that it was conscious, since consciousness seems to me to be totally subjectively defined. If you say that a program would not be able to pass, I might agree with you intuitively, but I would question it intellectually. Because I've always believed that there are cases that are definitely perceived as conscious by other people. I would be shocked if someone truly believed that the person next to me is somehow not conscious. So the next question I would ask is whether consciousness resides and arises from something that can be explained scientifically. Or to put it simply: Can we describe,now or in the future, the workings of the brain? If so, I really don't think we would need a scientific explanation for any epiphenomenon such as consciousness, all we would need to is recreate those initial conditions and we should be able to mimic consciousness. If you say that we won't be able to mimic the workings of the human brain I'd simply say that you are making the statement that there is physical phenomena that can never ever be explained by science. If you say that even if we recreate a human brain, we will never mimic consciousness, then I'd reply that you are saying that my personal definition of consciousness not affected and defined by other peoples definition of consciousness. I think that might be why you see an inconsistency between attributing a special meaning to consciousness and and religion. We instinctively act like the human race can find common ground on the definition of consciousness. We don't instinctively act like we can find common ground on religious beliefs.