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

81–90 of 189 posts

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

#81

Post by joubert »

joeyo wrote: post #76
joubert wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't humans also differentiated from machines in that the latter are designed, while humans are not designed? Machines are just an expression of humans' extended phenotypical effects on their environment.

Is that actually a quantifiable distinction? Does how something is constructed have any affect on it's properties? (assuming equivalent precision of the tools involved) Building a car by hand versus building one with a modern robotic assembly line both yield the same output.

Construction implies design.

Evolved entities (read: complex entities) are not designed.

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

#82

Post by christopherolah »

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'm not sure I agree. For several reasons:

a) The phenomena of qualia remains unexplained. This has no bearing on making something that can mimic consciousness, but does become significant if one wants the real thing. The last argument on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=766462

b) QM may be intrinsically linked to consciousness. (see Roger Penrose, _The Emperor's New Mind_) Of course, this a mute point given the QM computing seems to be around the corner.

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

#83

Post by joubert »

rabidsnail wrote: post #12

We have no definition of consciousness, so it's impossible to say whether machine consciousness is possible, or whether we have it already.

You may perhaps be confusing "definition" with "understanding".

My dictionary defines consciousness thus:

consciousness |ˈkän ch əsnəs| noun the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings : she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later. • the awareness or perception of something by a person : her acute consciousness of Mike's presence. • the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world : consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.

====

We may not know HOW consciousness comes about, but we do have a definition of what consciousness is.

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

#85

Post by joeyo »

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.

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

#86

Post by fburnaby »

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…

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.

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

#87

Post by joeyo »

joubert wrote: post #81
joeyo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually a quantifiable distinction? Does how something is constructed have any affect on it's properties? (assuming equivalent precision of the tools involved) Building a car by hand versus building one with a modern robotic assembly line both yield the same output.

Construction implies design. Evolved entities (read: complex entities) are not designed.

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?

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

#88

Post by fburnaby »

It would be just as much of an academic service for you to help find a out that AI can't work is it would be if you found out it can. The problem is inherently interesting and worthwhile pursuing, regardless. Phlogiston theory brought on Oxygen and the rest of chemistry after a while.

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

#89

Post by joeyo »

zoba wrote: post #24
gruseom wrote: post #11

Let's address the easy part: Do you think the Church-Turing thesis (anything that is computable is computable by a Turing machine) indicates that machine consciousness is possible? Only if you assume that consciousness is a computation, which is assuming everything. I normally try to resist this topic, but what you're saying here tugs at my heart-strings: I'm now a little concerned that it may all be a waste. I'd pre…

I've thought of it several times, but it wasn't until recently that it actually kind of scared me. It was just a surprise thought that arose as I was once again thinking about the topic. It probably scared me this time and not others because I'm very stressed over the GRE, and grad school applications (namely: where the heck should I apply), and how me telling grad schools "Oh, I'd like to study machine consciousness…

My advice, if you are considering a PhD, is to pick your school based on your potential research advisor more than the department or the school in general. Contact him or her before you apply and tell them your plans of study and research interests and then go from there.

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

#90

Post by joubert »

joeyo wrote: post #87
joubert wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Construction implies design. Evolved entities (read: complex entities) are not designed.

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 at - if you were building a human eye, you wouldn't make the same "mistakes". The deviation from the "better" version is measurable.

2) Evolved entities exist because of procreation. And their only reason for existence is to assist genetic material to replicate. Constructed objects reproduce exactly 0 times and have 0 genetic (or other replicator material).

Post reply on HN