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

171–180 of 189 posts

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

#171

Post by yason »

It is inevitably a question of belief.

If we want to stick to what we seem to know for sure physically and scientifically, then I suppose we can consider humans equal to computers albeit much more parallel and complex. In other words, if we reduce a human to mere electric signals in the nervous system and accept that finally the whole human life derives from that only, then we can eventually build a similar machine ourselves.

If we want to think that a human is merely a physical projection of some greater energy, be it the while universe, gods -- or a single $GOD, if you prefer -- then we definitely can't produce consciousness ourselves. Instead, we would have to wait for, or somehow invite, the greater energy or consciousness itself to find and take presence in the form of a machine that passes electric signals around.

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

#172

Post by mgrouchy »

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.

How are we unique? Do you know there is no other life in the universe similar to us? Can you prove there is no other life in the universe similar(or the same) as us? What do we have a connection to? God? Am I less significant because I don't feel this connection, because I don't feel humans have eternal significance?

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

#173

Post by naveensundar »

Tichy wrote: post #72
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"?

Is there a definition of consciousness? The gist is that people are dishonest when they claim they have a conscious program or robot. The notion that a program causes consciousness is not well defended. Suppose I have a program X which is conscious and let it be written down. Does it get conscious if a billion people execute it in parallel? It is not clear what is conscious in this case. (Searle's Argument)

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

#174

Post by naveensundar »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #57
naveensundar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, so it is orthogonal to Church-Turing. Do you have any proof or any testing that can be done to validate that?

He's defining a term. He doesn't need proof - though you're welcome to dispute his definition.

Thats what I am doing. Of course I did not use the right words, but I assume my intent was clear.

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

#175

Post by ajuc »

coffeeaddicted wrote: post #146
kalid wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That brings up interesting ethical issues -- could you play a FPS game knowing the bad guys were 'conscious'?

I play Multiplayer FPS even though I know my opponents are conscious. Doesn't prevent me from shooting them because I know I only kill their avatar and not themselves. Same with AI - I shoot at an avatar I won't destroy it's code. The ethical issues will rather be the moment when AI's are clever enough that they can be teached. What will humans teach them? Personally I believe the best protection from abuse will be t…

Code is not the avatar - it is the knowledge and memories (probably written in form of a big blob of neural net coefficients) that makes a concious being. Each time the game is restarted there would be new beings in it (unless their data is saved between games somewhere).

Erasing knowledge and memories of such AI would be analog to killing, and it will become problem, because throwing out data is easier, and writing you enemies to DVD after each game of Quake 10 becouse of moral issues will be problematic after some time.

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

#176

Post by Tichy »

naveensundar wrote: post #173
Tichy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is there a definition of consciousness? The gist is that people are dishonest when they claim they have a conscious program or robot. The notion that a program causes consciousness is not well defended. Suppose I have a program X which is conscious and let it be written down. Does it get conscious if a billion people execute it in parallel? It is not clear what is conscious in this case. (Searle's Argument)

It's just not very interesting. It would be the same to say "I give you 1 billion dollars if you write me a program that does hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz", without saying what "hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz" is. Saying "no machine can be conscious" is equivalent to saying "no machine is hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz".

I am not even sure it would be dishonest to take the money. It is kind of insulting to give such a task, so maybe it would serve the sponsor right. After all, the sponsor would be unable to prove that the program is not conscious.

Suppose I submit a program that does nothing than print "the weather is nice" on the screen. Who is to say the machine is not conscious? It could be all sorts of self-aware, but for personal reasons decide to communicate nothing but "the weather is nice" to the outside world.

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

#177

Post by Freaky »

elduderino wrote: post #167
Freaky wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you saying it will be possible someday to kill a human being, disassemble all its parts, reassemble them and bring that person back to life?

Er.. no, I'm saying if there's something magically special about our organic composition required to make a conscious being, then we can build machines out of the same organic compounds. If you want to get those compounds by disassembling people, well.. I guess waste not want not, but it isn't really what I had in mind ;)

"Consciousness is not computable" just means we need to build a new class of machine. Whether it's a blob of organic jelly in a box, or an IC with currently unknown structures on it to exploit certain handwavy quantum processes, or whatever; it just makes the task more complex, it doesn't make it impossible.

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

#178

Post by naveensundar »

Tichy wrote: post #176
naveensundar wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a definition of consciousness? The gist is that people are dishonest when they claim they have a conscious program or robot. The notion that a program causes consciousness is not well defended. Suppose I have a program X which is conscious and let it be written down. Does it get conscious if a billion people execute it in parallel? It is not clear what is conscious in this case. (Searle's Argument)

It's just not very interesting. It would be the same to say "I give you 1 billion dollars if you write me a program that does hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz", without saying what "hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz" is. Saying "no machine can be conscious" is equivalent to saying "no machine is hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz". I am not even sure it would be dishonest to take the money. It is kind of insulting to give such a task, so ma…

>It's just not very interesting. It would be the same to say "I give you 1 billion dollars if you write me a program that does hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz", without saying what "hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz" is. Saying "no machine can be conscious" is equivalent to saying "no machine is hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz".

Then, saying your weather-printing machine is conscious is equivalent to saying that is hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz which of course means nothing. But a lay person will really think that machine is conscious.

If you say your machine is conscious, then you must show it is conscious rather than just claim it is conscious. I can print "I travel faster than light" and claim that is a proof of faster than light travel to a lay person who will believe me. That is what is happening today in consciousness and AI research.

Just cause you can't see the earth is round directly does not mean it is not spherical. There should atleast be an indirect way, otherwise it is not Science :).

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

#179

Post by 7iv3 »

coffeeaddicted wrote: post #169
7iv3 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, I was making an assumption that humans are conscious. Even if consciousness is not what we belief, even if its complicity deterministic. I mean, if something exists, we can copy it. Even if humans only mirror consciousness, we can copy the mirror. Otherwise we're talking about teology, and, if such, I won't be part of the debate. Not my field.

AI isn't about copying the thing but about copying the information processes. So a 1:1 copy isn't AI. Also if you make your assumptions the way that AI must obviously work then, well - it certainly must work and there is no way that it can't. Doh. So far we haven't nailed down consciousness and until we got that I try to keep some alternative theories still in my mind. Especially if the alternate theories correspond…

Well, if you put it that way, maybe I am to certain. I'm aware that there is still a lot of things that we don't know or even have a single clue about. That we can gain new data and that equation can change.

But on the other hand, agnosticism is kinda lack of balls ^^ What you stand for determines what you do. So clearly its better to stand for something, even if you sometimes get wrong.

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

#180

Post by Tichy »

naveensundar wrote: post #178
Tichy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just not very interesting. It would be the same to say "I give you 1 billion dollars if you write me a program that does hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz", without saying what "hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz" is. Saying "no machine can be conscious" is equivalent to saying "no machine is hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz". I am not even sure it would be dishonest to take the money. It is kind of insulting to give such a task, so ma…

>It's just not very interesting. It would be the same to say "I give you 1 billion dollars if you write me a program that does hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz", without saying what "hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz" is. Saying "no machine can be conscious" is equivalent to saying "no machine is hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttueeertz". Then, saying your weather-printing machine is conscious is equivalent to saying that is hhfdsodifiuuiuuuttuee…

Except that "it is conscious" is not a hypothesis, because it doesn't mean anything. That is the whole point: the whole task doesn't contain any testable bits.
Post reply on HN