3 ms·

I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not arguing what we call evolution doesn't lead to machines very different from the ones that we might chose

by joeyo 17y ago

I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not arguing what we call evolution doesn't lead to machines very different from the ones that we might chose to engineer ourselves. Rather, I am arguing that, as far as I can tell, I could, given enough time, money and energy, construct a living being using methods very different from natural selection and get the same result. In other words, I don't see why there is anything special about the path taken (some paths may require less energy though. ;-) ) Therefore, I don't consider designing vs evolving as a good way to separate machines capable of consciousness from machines not capable of consciousness.

joubert 17y ago
There is something very special about the path taken (although this phrase is a little misleading) in evolution - not from a design perspective, but from a result perspective - evolution by natural selection is neither a random process, nor a goal-directed design. Organisms (and by extension, or by reason) are alive because their ancestors have been lucky enough to survive long enough to have offspring. Note, I'm not arguing that machines cannot be capable of consciousness. But I am saying that constructed machines are necessarily distinguishable from organisms primarily because they're designed with a goal in mind (unlike organisms - these aren't designed but are the result of the co-operation of genes into higher levels of complexity, team work that has happened to be useful to the survival of the replicating matter - DNA, RNA, or possibly other such material elsewhere in the universe). I would posit that because of the evolved nature of organisms, there may be flaws in their consciousness (e.g. through chemical imbalance, irrational deduction etc.). It is more likely that machines that are designed for intelligence & consciousness would be gifted (or cursed, depending on your convictions) with perfection, rationality, normalcy, as attributes, or at least their designers would attempt that. So the the nature of their consciousness would be qualitatively different from that of organisms.

by joeyo 17y ago

joubert 17y ago

There is something very special about the path taken (although this phrase is a little misleading) in evolution - not from a design perspective, but from a result perspective - evolution by natural selection is neither a random process, nor a goal-directed design. Organisms (and by extension, or by reason) are alive because their ancestors have been lucky enough to survive long enough to have offspring. Note, I'm not arguing that machines cannot be capable of consciousness. But I am saying that constructed machines are necessarily distinguishable from organisms primarily because they're designed with a goal in mind (unlike organisms - these aren't designed but are the result of the co-operation of genes into higher levels of complexity, team work that has happened to be useful to the survival of the replicating matter - DNA, RNA, or possibly other such material elsewhere in the universe). I would posit that because of the evolved nature of organisms, there may be flaws in their consciousness (e.g. through chemical imbalance, irrational deduction etc.). It is more likely that machines that are designed for intelligence & consciousness would be gifted (or cursed, depending on your convictions) with perfection, rationality, normalcy, as attributes, or at least their designers would attempt that. So the the nature of their consciousness would be qualitatively different from that of organisms.