Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible? • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by lee » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:17 AM UTC

I believe it's possible and will eventually happen.

I imagine through some randomness, or directed experiment, a piece of software will exist which will self-replicate and mutate... eventually evolving to some point of self-awareness.

Most likely we won't have deliberately created the AI. It'll just be through some random chance that it'll happen, much like how some random collisions of molecules formed "life" a few billion years ago.

Much like how life was formed on Earth, given enough time and material, the chance of AI emergence is bound to happen.

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

#72

Post by Tichy » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:18 AM UTC

naveensundar wrote: post #48

For those people who claim conscious machines exist read "Offer: One Billion Dollars for a Conscious Robot; If You’re Honest, You Must Decline" http://www.eripsa.org/files/Bringsjord%20Robot.pdf :)

Waste of time, sorry. Didn't make it to the end, but does he say anything else than "there is no definition of consciousness"?

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

#73

Post by joubert » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:19 AM UTC

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…

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.

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

#74

Post by tensor » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:21 AM UTC

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.

Considering we've already simulated the basic building blocks of our brain and understand all the basic molecules involved, I'd say that we already have a very strong indication that we can eventually have a machine conciseness similar to our own.

The only two physical process that we know of that are fundamentally impossible to compute with our computing model are quantum computations and chaotic systems. And for chaotic systems we most certainly can simulate them in a way that the output has all the correct properties as far as we know. It's more that we can't reliably do prediction in such systems due to finite precision.

The simple fact is that computers are already our superiors on many tasks. And those tasks are not simple either.

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

#75

Post by joubert » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:24 AM UTC

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.

Humans have a connection with something larger than the universe? What does that even mean?

From the biological point of view, the simplest species is AS SUCCESSFUL as the most complex species, since both are still alive and procreating.

Why do humans have eternal significance? To whom?

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

#76

Post by joeyo » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:25 AM UTC

joubert wrote: post #73

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…

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.

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

#77

Post by joubert » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:28 AM UTC

Freaky wrote: post #65

codexon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We are biological. So if we do it, it is really just a phenotypical expression of our genes.

Perhaps the disagreement is about when do machines (keeping in mind they're mechanical by definition) cross over to becoming more and more like biological entities (replication). And once they do, is it still coherent to think of them as machines as we use the term today. Or would we then think machines have been elevated to the biological level.

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

#78

Post by joeyo » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:29 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #23

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.

I think the definition of consciousness is implied as whatever we humans are experiencing right now. So for a computer to be truly realizing its own existence, it would have to be modeled after ourselves.

The problem is you have to believe what the computer tells you when it says it has consciousness.

(In the same way that I have to believe you when you say you have consciousness).

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

#79

Post by joubert » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:30 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #41

amalcon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is one nonreligious factor that significantly differentiates humans from machines: that humans evolved, while machines were built by humans. There's an argument to be made that humans cannot understand consciousness well enough to build it, because consciousness is our only tool for doing that. Of course, this only applies to intentional creation of consciousness. It says nothing about the distinct possibility…

But we know how to get the effects of evolution... on steroids: unsupervised, feedback/effect based learning (generic algorithms, NNs, etc.) We can already generate big enough NNs that we can understand them in general (some areas get "specialised" in some way and more active in some conditions), and we know that the result is what we expect - but there's no way someone will take a look at the weights / resulting mod…

Evolution does not have a goal in mind.

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

#80

Post by joubert » Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 2:31 AM UTC

thorax wrote: post #49

amalcon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is one nonreligious factor that significantly differentiates humans from machines: that humans evolved, while machines were built by humans. There's an argument to be made that humans cannot understand consciousness well enough to build it, because consciousness is our only tool for doing that. Of course, this only applies to intentional creation of consciousness. It says nothing about the distinct possibility…

A computer-based consciousness would also be a result of evolution (albeit in a different way than things we know usually) being the byproduct of something that an evolved species created to help itself adapt. Sometimes, when I'm getting overlogical, I see machine intelligence as being pretty much our destiny (i.e. that singularity thing) and that organic life may be very much obsolete once it gets into its own. As o…

Evolution is not directed by a consciousness, so you cannot loosely use the term "evolution" to describe the DEVELOPMENT of computer-based consciousness.

ADDED: but yes, extended phenotype and all that jazz.