Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 189 posts

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#101

Post by joeyo »

wensing wrote: post #97
joubert wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can easily tell the difference between entities that have evolved by natural selection, and constructed entities. (BTW, mutation is random, but evolution is not a random process). Two example quantitative differences (although, I'm not sure why the specific exclusion of qualitative differences): 1) The human eye, for example, has flaws (that are solved in other similarly evolved eyes) that an engineer laughs…

The human eye, for example, has flaws (that are solved in other similarly evolved eyes) that an engineer laughs at What are those flaws, if you happen to know? I'm curious.

An example of something that joubert is referring to is the fact that photoreceptors (rods and cones) in the human eye are actually located behind the retinal ganglial cells, nerve fibers, and capillaries. So light has to pass through a layer of tissue before being detected. One consequence of this is the blind spot.

An engineer would probably try a different ordering.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#102

Post by joubert »

wensing wrote: post #97
joubert wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can easily tell the difference between entities that have evolved by natural selection, and constructed entities. (BTW, mutation is random, but evolution is not a random process). Two example quantitative differences (although, I'm not sure why the specific exclusion of qualitative differences): 1) The human eye, for example, has flaws (that are solved in other similarly evolved eyes) that an engineer laughs…

The human eye, for example, has flaws (that are solved in other similarly evolved eyes) that an engineer laughs at What are those flaws, if you happen to know? I'm curious.

In his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins comments:

Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light.

Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called "blind spot") to join the optic nerve.

This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don't know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#103

Post by dasil003 »

drcode wrote: post #7

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 religi…

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.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#104

Post by ewjordan »

joeyo wrote: post #85
elduderino wrote: post #54

If you define humans as machines - automated creatures based on input and output, then yes. However there is this thing called qualia (aka subjective experience) that I believe is very real. Machines are not capable of this. All of the AI today is based on complex algorithms with an input output model. There is nothing subjective going on inside.

We don't know for sure that machines are not currently capable of experiencing qualia. We don't know that machines cannot ever be capable of experiencing qualia. We don't even know if animals experience qualia, and if so, which ones. I don't even know for sure if you are experiencing qualia.

I don't even know for sure if you are experiencing qualia.

I'll go you one further and admit that I don't know for sure if I am experiencing qualia.

My brain certainly tells itself that I am, but how do I know it's not just wrong?

Perhaps qualia is, in the end, nothing more than the state of asserting to yourself that you feel qualia. In which case it's really more a question about whether your brain is properly structured to ask that question than about whether it really exists...

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#105

Post by joeyo »

ewjordan wrote: post #104
joeyo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know for sure that machines are not currently capable of experiencing qualia. We don't know that machines cannot ever be capable of experiencing qualia. We don't even know if animals experience qualia, and if so, which ones. I don't even know for sure if you are experiencing qualia.

I don't even know for sure if you are experiencing qualia. I'll go you one further and admit that I don't know for sure if I am experiencing qualia. My brain certainly tells itself that I am, but how do I know it's not just wrong? Perhaps qualia is, in the end, nothing more than the state of asserting to yourself that you feel qualia. In which case it's really more a question about whether your brain is properly stru…

Ah, yes, we have arrived at the problem of being fundamentally unable to be sure of the nature of reality. We don't know if our sensors are reporting to us the "true" nature of the world and we don't know if our brains are reporting to us the "true" nature of our internal states.

I guess, like you, I am okay with accepting that experiencing qualia and my brain telling me that I am experiencing qualia are functionally indistinguishable if not equivalent states.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#106

Post by Mentat_Enki »

gloob wrote: post #59
Mentat_Enki wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bah....I call bullshit. This is pure anthropomorphism. Humans think they are the shit, but in fact they are only story-telling animals (which does give us an evolutionary advantage, incidentally. We are not limited in our information transfer inter-generationally by genes alone.) We are limited by the same physics as the chips we make. This innate quality you speak of is pure vapor. Even if humans were somehow able t…

Bah....I call bullshit. This is pure anthropomorphism. Humans think they are the shit, but in fact they are only story-telling animals The poster you are responding did not claim that humans are the shit . They merely pointed out the fact that we have so far proven incapable of proving that we aren`t said shit. Now, you could argue that such a hypothesis could only be falsified by the construction of a machine consci…

yeah perhaps I drew him into this one, but "innate quality of human organic compounds" seemed like a bit of human elitism to me. To which I say "hey buddy, just because we are (apparently) the most dominant species on the planet (which I also am not too certain I agree with), doesn't mean we are the end all be all, or worse, somehow different than all the animalia we happen to try to place ourselves "above" or something. Trust me, when humans wear out their welcome here (which seems to be coming with great alacrity with regard to cosmic timescales), the insects will be more than happy to eat our corpses and continue on happily without us. We are adaptable, but not THE MOST adaptable organism on the planet. And regarding the philosophical position business, I also call bollocks, as there was not one rational argument presented to back his premise regarding the "innate quality of organic human compounds". Is the human neuron somehow magically different than a chimp's neuron? Methinks not, i.e. it is particularly unsound to somehow make our molecules different than any other organisms molecules simply because we are human.

No, human intelligence is an emergent quality, and I fathom that even our massive representations of humanity's information (akin to what Google is compiling) will soon begin to exhibit interesting qualities of its own once it becomes complex enough to exhibit perhaps interesting, unanticipated emergent qualities (in fact, if it didn't I would be absolutely shocked). Many strange and unpredictable (or at the very least unanticipated) things arise from even the simplest of "complex systems" (Conway's game of life and some of Wolfram's automata), much less the wonderful systems detailed by our individual neural mappings and our individual genomes. (q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_behavior)

People always think that some human will "write" an AI like HAL or the like, but it is much more likely that nature will roll its own AI once we have made a comfy enough nest for it to germinate. After all, isn't that how we got here? (from an evolutionary biologists standpoint anyhow...)

And again, sorry for being contentious. I just despise the "religious" argument (even if there is no "named religion" being expounded... Let's keep Ockham's Razor at the ready here....)

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#107

Post by joeyo »

joubert wrote: post #90
joeyo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but how is a constructed object and a ... (randomly? naturally? what ever word you want to use) evolved object quantitatively different? One could follow all the steps involved in getting a human from his evolutionary ancestor to his current state by using a pair of magic tweezers to make each mutation in the genome happen at the right time and in the right way. Could you tell the difference based on the result?

Yes, you can easily tell the difference between entities that have evolved by natural selection, and constructed entities. (BTW, mutation is random, but evolution is not a random process). Two example quantitative differences (although, I'm not sure why the specific exclusion of qualitative differences): 1) The human eye, for example, has flaws (that are solved in other similarly evolved eyes) that an engineer laughs…

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.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#109

Post by joubert »

joeyo wrote: post #107
joubert wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can easily tell the difference between entities that have evolved by natural selection, and constructed entities. (BTW, mutation is random, but evolution is not a random process). Two example quantitative differences (although, I'm not sure why the specific exclusion of qualitative differences): 1) The human eye, for example, has flaws (that are solved in other similarly evolved eyes) that an engineer laughs…

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…

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.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

#110

Post by netsp »

kevinpet wrote: post #8

If we assume that humans are conscious, then yes, it is possible for a machine to be conscious. The only arguments categorically differentiating humans from electronic machines are religious in nature. I define consciousness as having an internal model of the world that includes yourself, as well as your own though processes (at a lower degree of fidelity). This says how you compute things, not what you are computing…

I know virtually nothing about CS, which may be an advantage in seeing the sense in your thinking in abstract.

If we assume that humans are conscious & material, without bothering to define either, we at least know it is possible to have consciousness embodied in something material. At least in theory we could figure out how human consciousness works and replicate it. There may be easier ways, but this is at least one theoretical possibility.

You could in the same way have inferred that humans could figure out a way of creating flight from the fact that it exists in nature.

Post reply on HN