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

Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#141

Post by filoeleven »

mh-cx wrote: post #75
gpderetta wrote: post #47

The most interesting definition I have seen of consciousness is [1] "the mind thinking about the mind thinking", i.e. some sort of meta-level "diagnostic process". What I find interesting is that this definition supports awareness and an the existence of an 'I', but doesn't imply any sort of control or direct influence on the unconscious mind for which there seem to be experimental evidence against. Instead the resul…

Not really a definition, but my very personal take on what conciousness is: Evolution has brought about creatures that are more successful (in regard to survival and reproduction), the more predictive power they have about their environment[1]. One could say, the better a species can simulate it's environment, the more likely it will continue to exist and be part of the ongoing evolution. Our brains are of course als…

If you read fiction, you will probably enjoy Anathem by Neal Stephenson.

"Consciousness is the process of simulation of reality" is a starting point. The question is asked "How does the simulation work?" Why are we so good at simulating certain kinds of counterfactual scenarios? Why do we consider some to be plausible (e.g. worrying about a friend moving away) while others we disregard as immediately absurd (e.g. worrying about being attacked by pink nerve-gas-farting dragons)?

Like most of his books, it's a great yarn in an interesting world. The ideas he's exploring are rooted in platonism (how can a theoretical mathematical abstraction affect physical systems?), quantum physics, and the nature of consciousness. It takes a while to really get rolling, and when it does it snowballs fast, but I found it to be very enjoyable from the start.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#142

Post by naasking »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #139
naasking wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The computer that runs the VR (including the AI controlling the behaviour of the NPCs) might well be conscious, but the NPCs themselves are just pixels. Where and how the information processing actually occurs to produce this intelligence doesn't seem relevant. The NPCs are individually either as intelligent as a person, and equally distinct, or they are not. If they are, they may be conscious. You said they are so…

I think we're arguing past each other here. I accept that the computer controlling the VR might be conscious of something while it runs the AI software, but the brains of the NPCs clearly aren't conscious. In fact, they don't even need to have brains. The computer isn't immersed in the VR the way you and your friend are. It doesn't use senses the same way you do.

> I accept that the computer controlling the VR might be conscious of something while it runs the AI software

But the AI software/algorithm is exactly what would produce the consciousness, if it were possible to do. So if it runs this algorithm individually for each NPC, then each NPC is conscious. And it clearly must run the algorithm individually because each NPC finds itself in different circumstances, and so must respond differently to its environment, even if they all share the same "personality".

> It doesn't use senses the same way you do.

I still don't see why that's relevant. Sensory inputs are still just inputs. The AI algorithm also has such inputs since each NPC must respond to its environment.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#143

Post by yarou »

naasking wrote: post #134
yarou wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that comfortable with the hand wavy physicalist view that consciousness arises from the physical processes of the brain. If that were the case, why can't I simply design an artificial brain, a cyber brain, and upload myself in 1000 bodies? What really spoke to me in Aaronson's entire lecture is the whole quantum no-cloning restriction. Bell State can't help you either, because you can't violate causality. Sup…

> If that were the case, why can't I simply design an artificial brain, a cyber brain, and upload myself in 1000 bodies? What makes you think you can't, at least in principle?

Because it necessarily violates quantum no-cloning. I think the state of any human at time t is a quantum state, more specifically a linear superposition of n distinct states with probability amplitudes.

I don't necessarily agree with the lookup table analogy - sure, consciousness is finite, but it is also a chaotic system. Else, it would be extremely easy to predict every possible set of actions I will make in my entire life. As Aaronson mentions, I don't think you could do that without killing me using something like Laplace's demon.

It's relatively easy to create a simulation of me - that's merely a problem of data. A simulation wouldn't be conscious though, it would be like me, but not me proper.

I think there is some intrinsic property that gives rise to consciousness, as of yet undiscovered. Hard to say though, after all, are we all not information?

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#144

Post by mh-cx »

filoeleven wrote: post #141
mh-cx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really a definition, but my very personal take on what conciousness is: Evolution has brought about creatures that are more successful (in regard to survival and reproduction), the more predictive power they have about their environment[1]. One could say, the better a species can simulate it's environment, the more likely it will continue to exist and be part of the ongoing evolution. Our brains are of course als…

If you read fiction, you will probably enjoy Anathem by Neal Stephenson. "Consciousness is the process of simulation of reality" is a starting point. The question is asked " How does the simulation work?" Why are we so good at simulating certain kinds of counterfactual scenarios? Why do we consider some to be plausible (e.g. worrying about a friend moving away) while others we disregard as immediately absurd (e.g. wo…

I really do, thanks. It's on my todo list now, right after Philip K. Dick's VALIS trilogy and Mark von Schlegell's Venusia.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#145

Post by Grishnakh »

AgentME wrote: post #35
crag wrote: post #9

The question isn't "can" but "should". Should we, assuming we could, create conscious (conscious meaning being self-aware and having the ability to learn) machines? There have been hundreds of books, movies, games - about this issue and all, come to the same conclusion... NO.

Creating consciousness has been a very popular thing for couples to do for many thousands of years!

And look what a disaster it is much of the time.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#146

Post by Grishnakh »

crag wrote: post #9

The question isn't "can" but "should". Should we, assuming we could, create conscious (conscious meaning being self-aware and having the ability to learn) machines? There have been hundreds of books, movies, games - about this issue and all, come to the same conclusion... NO.

I disagree. We absolutely should create conscious, artificially-intelligent beings, and then hopefully they'll decide we're obsolete and wipe us out. Good riddance.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#147

Post by naasking »

yarou wrote: post #143
naasking wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that were the case, why can't I simply design an artificial brain, a cyber brain, and upload myself in 1000 bodies? What makes you think you can't, at least in principle?

Because it necessarily violates quantum no-cloning. I think the state of any human at time t is a quantum state, more specifically a linear superposition of n distinct states with probability amplitudes. I don't necessarily agree with the lookup table analogy - sure, consciousness is finite, but it is also a chaotic system. Else, it would be extremely easy to predict every possible set of actions I will make in my en…

It's strange that you find the physicalist account "hand-wavy", but then use a physicalist model to dispute mind uploads. So do you accept physicalism or don't you?

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#148

Post by DonaldFisk »

naasking wrote: post #142
DonaldFisk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're arguing past each other here. I accept that the computer controlling the VR might be conscious of something while it runs the AI software, but the brains of the NPCs clearly aren't conscious. In fact, they don't even need to have brains. The computer isn't immersed in the VR the way you and your friend are. It doesn't use senses the same way you do.

> I accept that the computer controlling the VR might be conscious of something while it runs the AI software But the AI software/algorithm is exactly what would produce the consciousness, if it were possible to do. So if it runs this algorithm individually for each NPC, then each NPC is conscious. And it clearly must run the algorithm individually because each NPC finds itself in different circumstances, and so must…

I think we'll end up agreeing to disagree here, but the AI would only be producing the appearance of consciousness in the NPCs. There's absolutely no reason to believe it experiences any of the qualia experienced by the people immersed in the VR. It doesn't see anything or hear anything. Only the people do, via their headsets. It just behaves as if it does, like the people on your television screen.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#149

Post by Koshkin »

andrewla wrote: post #22

> Look, clearly we’re machines governed by the laws of physics. We’re computers made of meat, as Marvin Minsky put it. This really seem inescapable to me. The remaining arguments all seem like smokescreens. Being able to copy computer programs? Reproducing the running state of even a moderately complex distributed system is effectively impossible, so this argument bothers me not at all. Even if there is some quantum…

To me, what seems to be almost inescapable is the thought that a "thinking" computer will, eventually, have many, many orders of magnitude greater difference in thinking power between it and a human than a human has between itself and, say, an insect.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#150

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

>> “give me a big enough computer and the relevant initial conditions, and I’ll simulate the brain atom-by-atom.”

Nuh-huh. You can't keep blaming it all on the hardware. Every year there's bigger and bigger computers and more and more people who claim they'll do better next year, when there's bigger computers.

Well, it just ain't gonna happen. Fascinating intelligence that eats our most powerful artificial one for breakfast is all around us, and it runs on as little as five ganglia. Look at insects. They don't even have brains. They may not know calculus, they may be completely incapable of even acquiring the concept of a mathematical operation, but they are autonomous and viable in a harsh, hostile world that the most powerful machines we've built are completely incapable of inhabiting.

If recreating insect-level intelligence artificially was just a matter of computing power, we 'd have done it already: we got more than enough of it. Five ganglia? My calculator is more powerful than that! But we don't have a single machine that can do what the lowliest fruit fly can do: survive on its own, and thrive, in the real world [1].

So- why is human-level intelligence just a matter of more computing power, but insect-level one is not? Is there some kind of secret ingredient? Is there some kind of magic involved? Will some sort of -gasp- singularity occur when the number of gates on a processor reaches a critical mass? Will the machine suddenly acquire a S.O.U.L. [2] when we stuff enough processors in a single casing and plug it in to the mains?

I don't believe in magic and I don't see how this whole thing is supposed to work: "Just add more computing power". And then? What? What is the plan?

______________

[1] Actually, these things can, for limited periods, but nobody thinks they portend the coming of strong AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYGJ9jrbpvg - why not?

[2] Self-Optimising Unbeatable Logic

Post reply on HN