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

61–70 of 189 posts

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

#61

Post by Locke1689 »

mlLK wrote: post #46

I'm certainly not grad student, but I wouldn't drop my pretty dime in graduate school studying AI. If anything, please not only research the current state of the field of AI but also research the history and those scientists working in the field right now. I wrote a paper on AI a couple summer's ago and as crummy, arrogant, short-sighted, and inconclusive as it reads, if you happen to skim it, I did come away learnin…

I must protest your lack of LaTeX/TeX use in your crummy paper. Knuth's line terminating algorithm has made me forever hate Word's aesthetics.

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

#62

Post by teeja »

I think it's more interesting to ask whether computer emotions are possible. (Not merely the emulation of emotions.)

A simple definition of consciousness is the difference between being asleep (mostly oblivious to self) and awake (aware of self, environment, and relationship). Even then, a machine can negotiate terrain. But add emotions and you get potential for creativity (non-programmed, original output) which is a testable measure of sentience.

Consciousness can be faked. Original work can't - certainly not original work that 'touches people's souls'. Somewhere in there is a machine that earns my ungrudging respect. It's not a formula: it's a feeling.

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

#63

Post by Freaky »

nwatson wrote: post #53
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…

humans are unique in the universe among all life forms and inanimate objects, are more than the sum of their physical parts, have a connection with something larger than the universe, and though in an insignifcant corner of an insignificant galaxy have an eternal significance.

See, there goes that story-telling and thinking we're "the shit" again. Thanks for providing a concrete example.

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

#64

Post by drcode »

dejb wrote: post #21
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…

OK here's an argument for why you could be right. Whatever it is that distinguishes consciousness for what computers can possible do is also the thing that makes you realise that computers can't be conscious. If you could logically write the reason down to 'prove it' then it would also be something that you could implement in a computer. So the reason, whatever it is, has lie somewhat outside of specifiable logic. Ju…

I like dejb's theory! I'll have to give it some thought.

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

#65

Post by Freaky »

codexon wrote: post #29
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…

You are assuming that there is no innate quality of human organic compounds and processes that differentiates us from electrical components. It may very well be the case that this is either true or false. We simply don't have enough evidence. And given the fact that we are discovering new properties of matter and organic reactions all the time, there is a bias towards this being false.

Then we'll make machines out of "human organic compounds" to exploit those processes.

We're machines. That we may not have made a machine of the same class ourselves is an implementation detail. Maybe a large one, but still not really an argument against making conscious intelligent machines. Biology can do it, sooner or later so can we.

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

#66

Post by Locke1689 »

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 guess the question we're really asking is this: is the human brain a Universal Turing Machine? Everything we've learned so far points to yes (our study of neural networks has revealed a possible mathematical structure which is Turing Complete), therefore my vote is with the 'yay's.

P.S. I am an atheist, therefore I do not believe there is anything metaphysical about the human brain. Maybe there is something special about our mushy carbon structure -- doesn't matter. In that case, we'll just build our artificial brain with wetware. Hardware is hardware is hardware (and physics is physics). Eventually we'll get an artificial neural net as complex as our biological one. The real question is software...

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

#67

Post by bufordtwain »

Personally, I do not think a machine will ever be conscious. Machines will always be as dumb as a box of rocks and will need to be told what to do. A machine follows rules - maybe complicated rules, but rules nonetheless. I cannot conceive of a situation where a machine that has been programmed to listen and talk hears a person in the room pass gas and spontaneously laughs as humans do (unless it has been programmed to do so). Sorry, I'm just not buying it. That doesn't mean that your trying to make a computer be conscious isn't a good use of your time. You'll learn lots and maybe you'll prove me wrong.

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

#69

Post by Tichy »

drcode wrote: post #16
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…

Wouldn't you agree that it feels awfully "weird" to be a living, breathing human? Doesn't it seem to be beyond what can be expressed by mere computer algorithms? I realize it is not a defensible argument to say that the human experience is just to "weird" to be computable- I wish I had a better argument for defending my position... Nonetheless, I find it hard to understand people, such as yourself, that are probably…

"Wouldn't you agree that it feels awfully "weird" to be a living, breathing human?"

From my perspective, being a computer would feel a lot weirder.

I think drastically spoken, feelings are just firing neurons. I don't think there is really anything special about (apart from the degree of complexity of the human body). If a computer has an algorithm that says

if(user hasn't typed anything for 14 days) lonely = true

then it has feelings, too. It might sound absurd, but only because it looks so simple. But imagine an enourmously complex program, and the information "lonely" trickles through it. There might be a routine somewhere

if lonely = true connect_irc_channel(#depression)

and so on and so on. From a certain level of complexity onwards, it won't be so obvious anymore, and we won't be able to prevent feeling that the computer really feels.

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

#70

Post by mlLK »

Locke1689 wrote: post #61
mlLK wrote: post #46

I'm certainly not grad student, but I wouldn't drop my pretty dime in graduate school studying AI. If anything, please not only research the current state of the field of AI but also research the history and those scientists working in the field right now. I wrote a paper on AI a couple summer's ago and as crummy, arrogant, short-sighted, and inconclusive as it reads, if you happen to skim it, I did come away learnin…

I must protest your lack of LaTeX/TeX use in your crummy paper. Knuth's line terminating algorithm has made me forever hate Word's aesthetics.

I'll join your protest in my paper's lack of LaTeX; although I must admit that I've never felt or even considered anything I've ever published (for someone of higher academic seniority) a serious scientific contribution.

Nevertheless, shame on you for introducing the two following ideas in a complete sentence, Knuth's line terminating algorithm and Word's aesthetics. o_O As soon as my words are worth it, I swear to you that I will start investing my efforts into formatting my thoughts in a language as serious and beautiful as LaTeX. Until then Word is a wonderful canvas for finger-painting.

Post reply on HN