Can machines be conscious?


Post Reply
Lundse
Posts: 524
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 11:36
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Lundse »

The_Kat wrote:The idea that we could never build a machine that would be fully conscious implies an outside agency activly deciding what to make conscious and what not. So is necessarily religious in nature.
I don't agree that if we could never build a conscious machine, this means we have to look for religious explanations, nor that "someone must be deciding". We can have facts and laws about the universe (including consciousness) without anyone have decided they be so.
Some physicalist theories (those who hold that all is matter, consciousness is a side-effect) even stipulate that only braintissue computing data gives rise to consciousness, the same data computed by silicon chips would not do so.
I don't agree with that theory, just saying that you do not need god in order to make such distinctions.
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Freakzilla »

Lundse wrote:...you do not need god in order to make such distinctions.
THAT my friend, IS the religious issue. :P
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
trang
Posts: 1224
Joined: 06 May 2008 18:59
Location: Hot Tub Time Machine

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by trang »

I watched the animated movie "9" the other day, seems to cover this topic somewhat.
"Long Live the Fighters", "Dragon.....the other white meat."

Image
The_Kat
Posts: 50
Joined: 20 Nov 2009 05:09
Location: Great Britain
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by The_Kat »

Lundse wrote:
I don't agree that if we could never build a conscious machine, this means we have to look for religious explanations, nor that "someone must be deciding". We can have facts and laws about the universe (including consciousness) without anyone have decided they be so.
Some physicalist theories (those who hold that all is matter, consciousness is a side-effect) even stipulate that only braintissue computing data gives rise to consciousness, the same data computed by silicon chips would not do so.
I don't agree with that theory, just saying that you do not need god in order to make such distinctions.
I do understand the rationale behind the consciousness gives rise to matter. In its basic form being this universe is just a dream "I think therefore i am" being the only thing we can be sure of but in this instance not only is it not possible to create a conscious computer that can be proved i also can't prove you or anyone else is conscious. My point was given the universe of matter does actually exist, the idea that the laws of nature mean that only biological life can attain consciousness implies some agency filtering either actively or through those laws of nature. Or maybe better that someone could make a computer that is a conscious as my next door neighbour as my own real proof of both is through my observation of their behaviour, in this situation for that not be the case would imply an agency filtering conciousness even if that agency was my own conciousness. :?
Ur lack of planning, isnt my emergency
Spree4.com
Lundse
Posts: 524
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 11:36
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Lundse »

The_Kat wrote:I do understand the rationale behind the consciousness gives rise to matter.
I don't. I find it a cop-out, a "we would like to keep our materialistic theory of everything, hence some magic rules we do not know about, nor can ever check, must create this actual phenomenon of experience from the matter we like to posit exists.
The_Kat wrote:In its basic form being this universe is just a dream "I think therefore i am" being the only thing we can be sure of but in this instance not only is it not possible to create a conscious computer that can be proved i also can't prove you or anyone else is conscious.
I am not convinced that if the only thing we can be certain of is ourselves, this means the universe must be in a particular form similar to this (all a dream).
But you are correct that we cannot prove whether other people are conscious. Nor computers. The theoties which allow for such proof are either tentative, or stupid.
The_Kat wrote:My point was given the universe of matter does actually exist, the idea that the laws of nature mean that only biological life can attain consciousness implies some agency filtering either actively or through those laws of nature. Or maybe better that someone could make a computer that is a conscious as my next door neighbour as my own real proof of both is through my observation of their behaviour, in this situation for that not be the case would imply an agency filtering conciousness even if that agency was my own conciousness. :?
I simply do not see why there has to be an agent doing the filtering. Sorry.

2+2=4 - does this imply that there is an agent "filtering" which mathematic statement are true or not?
Just because you have some "fact about the universe" (math, physics or the postulated "some matter gives rises o conscious experiences) does not imply that there has to be an agent who is actively or passively making it so. Although certain creationists would like you to think so...
User avatar
SandChigger
KJASF Ground Zero
Posts: 14492
Joined: 08 Feb 2008 22:29
Location: A continuing state of irritation
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by SandChigger »

Egad ... what's all this lint doing in my belly button?!
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Freakzilla »

As FH wrote about in D:V, the problem is on of defining consciousness.

I see this as similar to arguing that a clone of yourself doesn't have a soul.

If I made an exact copy of myself it would be conscious, in the way that I am.

I don't make this organic vs mechanical distinction y'all seem to be hung up on, to me it seems a matter of scale. I say we ARE electro-chemical machines.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
The_Kat
Posts: 50
Joined: 20 Nov 2009 05:09
Location: Great Britain
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by The_Kat »

Lundse wrote:
I simply do not see why there has to be an agent doing the filtering. Sorry.
No need to be sorry, it's through learned discussion that the mind expands.
Lundse wrote: 2+2=4 - does this imply that there is an agent "filtering" which mathematic statement are true or not?
Just because you have some "fact about the universe" (math, physics or the postulated "some matter gives rises o conscious experiences) does not imply that there has to be an agent who is actively or passively making it so. Although certain creationists would like you to think so...
Thats exactly right but in the case of the inability to create machine consciousness we are essentailly saying that 2+2 = 4 is only true in certain circumstances. There by saying some of agency decideds when it is the case. You are postulating that there is a natural law that dictates that it is impossible to make a consciousness from bits electric circuits but yet allows the creation of consciousness from neurons no matter how precisily the base structures match. Thats such a specific law that i would argue it would require the existence of an external filtering agency, i suppose that that does not necessary imply a God and could just mean that the mind exists external to and just influences the physical brain, but might one not just as easily call that a soul. Does this external mind create the body, or do souls fall like seeds into the ripe soil of a newborn brain? If the second might not they fall into a newly built electronic brain also? If the first and our bodies are only physical creations of our abstract selves might not an abstract choose to physical manifestation of a Computer? If the physical representaion is limited again to nuerons not circuits doesn't that again imply an agency deciding what can be conscious.

I would further postulate that if it indeed turns out it is impossible to create a truly conscious machine, that would prove the existence of a Filtering agency(God)? However the reverse isn't true? The ability to create a truly conscious machine does not negate a God, just means God isn't as baised to giving souls to biological entities as many would hope.
Ur lack of planning, isnt my emergency
Spree4.com
Lundse
Posts: 524
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 11:36
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Lundse »

Freakzilla wrote:I don't make this organic vs mechanical distinction y'all seem to be hung up on, to me it seems a matter of scale. I say we ARE electro-chemical machines.
For the record, if I were a materialist/physicalist, I would agree that computation, and not the underlying matter doing it, was what we should assume matters in giving rise to consciousness - so there'd be a strong case for saying machines can be conscious as we are.
Lundse
Posts: 524
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 11:36
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Lundse »

The_Kat wrote:You are postulating that there is a natural law that dictates that it is impossible to make a consciousness from bits electric circuits but yet allows the creation of consciousness from neurons no matter how precisily the base structures match.
No. That's not what I am saying.
I am saying that if there is a difference between biological human brains and mechanical computer chips, when it comes to consciousness, we would not have to look to god to explain it - a simple natural law would suffice. Gravity is not explained better because you go "god did it", nor is consciousness...

The_Kat wrote:Thats such a specific law that i would argue it would require the existence of an external filtering agency...
No matter how specific a law, you do not have to posit any specific external thing. In fact, that is the no. 1 brainfart common to non-scientific thinking: lightning means there must be a guy with a hammer, gravity means god must want stones on the ground etc. We simply have no need for such an assumption.
That said, you following point about needing some sort of soul (something non-physical) would of course follow from saying that consciousness is not based on physical events.

The_Kat wrote:Does this external mind create the body, or do souls fall like seeds into the ripe soil of a newborn brain? If the second might not they fall into a newly built electronic brain also? If the first and our bodies are only physical creations of our abstract selves might not an abstract choose to physical manifestation of a Computer?
Indeed. I have no problem with the concept of a conscious machine, I have a problem with physicalist ontological theories. I am not convinced one way or another that machines can be conscious - to me, that depends on the specifics of the non-physicalist theory you hold, and I am not done with mine...

The_Kat wrote:If the physical representaion is limited again to nuerons not circuits doesn't that again imply an agency deciding what can be conscious.
I would further postulate that if it indeed turns out it is impossible to create a truly conscious machine, that would prove the existence of a Filtering agency(God)?
I know. I do not agree. Why do you feel god, or some other filtering agent, is necessary? We are doing fine with natural laws for other stuff, why does this phenomenon mean there must be an agent "out there" doing it?
The_Kat
Posts: 50
Joined: 20 Nov 2009 05:09
Location: Great Britain
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by The_Kat »

Lundse wrote:
The_Kat wrote:If the physical representaion is limited again to nuerons not circuits doesn't that again imply an agency deciding what can be conscious.
I would further postulate that if it indeed turns out it is impossible to create a truly conscious machine, that would prove the existence of a Filtering agency(God)?
I know. I do not agree. Why do you feel god, or some other filtering agent, is necessary? We are doing fine with natural laws for other stuff, why does this phenomenon mean there must be an agent "out there" doing it?
I think our misunderstanding boils down to our belief of laws, as I'm a trained mathematician(to undergraduate Hons degree level at least) and a budding (very-) amateur physicist. I believe that the laws of the universe should be at there base logical in nature and that illogical laws to nature would necessitate the existence of something external imposing its will on the universe, be that God or minds external the the brain.
Ur lack of planning, isnt my emergency
Spree4.com
Idahopotato
Posts: 103
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 13:06

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Idahopotato »

Lundse wrote: No. That's not what I am saying.
I am saying that if there is a difference between biological human brains and mechanical computer chips, when it comes to consciousness, we would not have to look to god to explain it - a simple natural law would suffice. Gravity is not explained better because you go "god did it", nor is consciousness...
Haven't you heard the "Intelligent Falling" argument?

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33


KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.


Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Freakzilla »

:lol:

Gravity isn't a force, space is curved.

Image
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
Omphalos
Inglorious Bastard
Posts: 6677
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 11:07
Location: The Mighty Central Valley of California
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Omphalos »

Gravity is a force. Its one of the four basic forces, the other three being alpha and beta particle decay and electromagnetism.
Image

The New & Improved Book Review Blog

Goodnight Golden Path!
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Freakzilla »

Omphalos wrote:Gravity is a force. Its one of the four basic forces, the other three being alpha and beta particle decay and electromagnetism.
I believe Einstein.

Einstein didn't believe gravity was a force at all; he said it was a distortion in the shape of space-time, otherwise known as "the fourth dimension".

Basic physics states that if there are no external forces at work, an object will always travel in the straightest possible line. Accordingly, without an external force, two objects travelling along parallel paths will always remain parallel. They will never meet.

But the fact is, they do meet. Particles that start off on parallel paths sometimes end up colliding. Newton's theory says this can occur because of gravity, a force attracting those objects to one another or to a single, third object. Einstein also says this occurs due to gravity -- but in his theory, gravity is not a force. It's a curve in space-time.

According to Einstein, those objects are still travelling along the straightest possible line, but due to a distortion in space-time, the straightest possible line is now along a spherical path. So two objects that were moving along a flat plane are now moving along a spherical plane. And two straight paths along that sphere end in a single point.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by A Thing of Eternity »

I think this is a semantics issue, it's not a force in the way we commonly think of the word force, but it is one of the four "fundamental interactions" that Omph just listed.
Image
User avatar
Harq al Ada
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Oct 2009 23:00
Location: Mormon country, AZ

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Harq al Ada »

gotta say I really liked this site before this topic but now... got a big ol' chubby for you guys.

wasn't able to read all of the previous posts but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I think it's arrogance that drives man to think that he is some how more special and other worldly than the rest of the life on this planet. can't wait until we create or find (or it finds us) other intelligence close to our own that will help destroy that bull shit.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The_Kat
Posts: 50
Joined: 20 Nov 2009 05:09
Location: Great Britain
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by The_Kat »

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I think this is a semantics issue, it's not a force in the way we commonly think of the word force, but it is one of the four "fundamental interactions" that Omph just listed.
I think its safe to say the above.

If you want to get into General relativity (Caused by curved space time) versus Quantum Mechanics (caused by the exchange of gravitons) this thread could go in stranger directions then it already has pretty quickly.
Ur lack of planning, isnt my emergency
Spree4.com
The_Kat
Posts: 50
Joined: 20 Nov 2009 05:09
Location: Great Britain
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by The_Kat »

Harq al Ada wrote: I think it's arrogance that drives man to think that he is some how more special and other worldly than the rest of the life on this planet. can't wait until we create or find (or it finds us) other intelligence close to our own that will help destroy that bull shit.
"What a piece of worke is a man! how Noble in
Reason? how infinite in faculty? in forme and mouing
how expresse and admirable? in Action, how like an Angel?
in apprehension, how like a God? the beauty of the
world, the Parragon of Animals; " -Hamlet


Its very tempting to believe oneself as the paragon of animals or as created in Gods image (which ever way you lean theologically.) It all generally boils down to the arrogance of man.
Ur lack of planning, isnt my emergency
Spree4.com
User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by A Thing of Eternity »

Harq al Ada wrote:gotta say I really liked this site before this topic but now... got a big ol' chubby for you guys.

wasn't able to read all of the previous posts but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I think it's arrogance that drives man to think that he is some how more special and other worldly than the rest of the life on this planet. can't wait until we create or find (or it finds us) other intelligence close to our own that will help destroy that bull shit.
I agree, but I doubt it'll shut down all the religious BS. If we create sentience, people will just say that it's not really sentient, it just mimicks sentience, and go on as before. And if we meet sentient life from another world, it'll just get factored into already existing religions or explained away as "apparently god hadn't thought we were ready to know about his other creations", not much will change.

Heck, eastern religions probably wouldn't even blink an eye at other sentience, butof course, many eastern religions do not place humanity on a pedistal in the first place, and consider some other life sentient, and in some cases, all other life equal to our own (in a manner of speaking).

I doubt much would change. Maybe a lot of people on the brink of giving up western.middle eastern religions like Christianity anyways would jump ship, but the zealots would just carry on.
Image
User avatar
SadisticCynic
Posts: 2053
Joined: 07 Apr 2009 09:28
Location: In Time or in Space?

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by SadisticCynic »

Omphalos wrote:Gravity is a force. Its one of the four basic forces, the other three being alpha and beta particle decay and electromagnetism.
Alpha and beta deacy are events mediated by the forces; the strong nuclear force (and electromagnetism apparently) and the weak force respectively. They are not forces themselves.

As to gravity being a force or not, this was something that had me confused. Glad to see it's not that I just missed something really obvious. :)
Ah English, the language where pretty much any word can have any meaning! - A Thing of Eternity
User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by A Thing of Eternity »

Man, when you go that deep into physics there's no such thing as a not-confusing subject. Matter and energy become the same thing (but not at the same time... if someone's looking...), space, which you've been brought up to think of as nothing, becomes the only truly real essence of the universe, all matter and energy seem to just be fluctuations in space itself... things gain mass when they accellerate, particles become entangled and seemingly transmit information between themselves instantaniously (FTL), Photons have no mass, or do they?

No one should EVER be embarrassed when some of this stuff gets a little confusing to them!!
Image
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Freakzilla »

...and Time gets slower as you go faster. :?
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
SadisticCynic
Posts: 2053
Joined: 07 Apr 2009 09:28
Location: In Time or in Space?

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by SadisticCynic »

Freakzilla wrote:...and Time gets slower as you go faster. :?
Actually, this one makes sense if time is another dimension. Imagine you can only see along the x-axis. You observe a rod of length l. Then if somehow the rod was moved so that it extended into both the y-axis and the x-axis all you would be able to see is the x-component of the rod, x, where x< l (i.e. x = (l^2 - y^2)^1/2 from Pythagoras theorem. )

Similarly, if an object moves faster and it appears to get shorter, (Lorentz contraction) which is due to the way it is observed with light at a constant velocity (I think) then it can be said that the spatial extension is being lost into the temporal extension.

That is, you lose length but gain time.

Special relativity is the most interesting thing I've done so far this year. And its only the specific case of inertial frames of reference at a constant velocity. Quantum mechanics however... :? Well, that's next semester... :)
Ah English, the language where pretty much any word can have any meaning! - A Thing of Eternity
User avatar
Harq al Ada
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Oct 2009 23:00
Location: Mormon country, AZ

Re: Can machines be conscious?

Post by Harq al Ada »

A Thing of Eternity wrote: I agree, but I doubt it'll shut down all the religious BS. If we create sentience, people will just say that it's not really sentient, it just mimicks sentience, and go on as before. And if we meet sentient life from another world, it'll just get factored into already existing religions or explained away as "apparently god hadn't thought we were ready to know about his other creations", not much will change.

Heck, eastern religions probably wouldn't even blink an eye at other sentience, butof course, many eastern religions do not place humanity on a pedistal in the first place, and consider some other life sentient, and in some cases, all other life equal to our own (in a manner of speaking).

I doubt much would change. Maybe a lot of people on the brink of giving up western.middle eastern religions like Christianity anyways would jump ship, but the zealots would just carry on.

yah, I've heard that excuse before for dinos. I think western religions are in a steady decline with maybe a rise here and there but bronze age mythology for the majority of the planet doesn't make sense.

there will probably be another kind of revolution or civil rights movement with sentient/self aware machinery. slavery will have to be abolished all over again. and the possibility that something that we create might surpass us in every way is pretty awesome.

computer enhanced and/or genetically engineered human brains is a fun idea too. and immortality through cloning or nanotech is probably not too far off either. now THAT will cause a bit of a religious tizzy. the tree of life in a petri dish, how fun.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Post Reply