Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

news.ycombinator.com

181–189 of 189 posts

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

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah perhaps I drew him into this one, but "innate quality of human organic compounds" seemed like a bit of human elitism to me. To which I say "hey buddy, just because we are (apparently) the most dominant species on the planet (which I also am not too certain I agree with), doesn't mean we are the end all be all, or worse, somehow different than all the animalia we happen to try to place ourselves "above" or someth…

There is a difference between being the most dominant species on the planet and being composed of living cells, resulting in breathing, aging, dieing, and reproducing. An organic thing should not be looked at in the same light as something that is not.

Why do you assume that our artificial intelligence will not be organic? Look to the rise of wetware, my friend.

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

#182
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "weirdness" (or whatever you want to call the enormous explanatory gap between our mental lives and inanimate matter) deserves an answer. It's not something to sweep under the rug as "subjective" or "unscientific" or "poorly defined". I agree, though, Hofstadter and Dennett have done an extraordinary job of devising such an answer. There is lots more work to be done, of course.

The "weirdness" (or whatever you want to call the enormous explanatory gap between our mental lives and inanimate matter) deserves an answer. It's not something to sweep under the rug as "subjective" or "unscientific" or "poorly defined". But what if the answer to the "weirdness" question is, in fact, that it's just an ill-formed question? What if it's just an illusion, and your brain is tricked into seeing something…

I would be satisfied with a good explanation of why the question is ill-formed, how the illusion comes about, etc.

I really don't think the question is ill-formed, though. There is a big explanatory gap. Denying that is simply dishonest. It would be like, if you don't know why a bicycle is easier to balance when it's moving, pretending that there is nothing to explain. "Oh, it's just bicycle parts."

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

#185
post #16
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?

No - it's just normal. I think it would be weirder if it wasn't some kind of computation, if I was a unique spirit out of several tens of billions that appeared from some unknowable place and origin, or whatever else 'i' might be.

Doesn't it seem to be beyond what can be expressed by mere computer algorithms?

I have no reason to think it is - I haven't felt what it's like to be a quicksort or a face recognition algorithm for comparison, but I certainly feel like a heap of evolved feedback loops at times - when I fear the dark in a room I know, when I catch sight of living shapes where there are none, when I feel fight-or-flight at certain caller ID numbers, when I desire things that I also don't want, when I feel judgements of people based on some trivial detail.

Nonetheless, I find it hard to understand people, such as yourself, that are probably exposed to this same "weirdness" in their heads as I am and yet are so confident it is merely an illusion created by a sufficiently complicated computation.

What else could it be? There isn't anywhere else it could reasonably be that we know of. You're either suggesting something unknowable (e.g. magic) or some kind of cruel joke (i.e. like a quine is a program that prints it's own source code, we could be a consciousness that sees the world except for the blind spot around the part that allows us to see how we work - and a cover over where that would be).

I'm not confident that we are 'just' a computation, but I'm fairly confident that I am in accordance with the laws of physics (including any we don't know yet) and that places limits on what's possible with the amount of matter in my head, the energy input and output, the sensory input and output bandwidths, the timescales involved, the known behavioural results of varying localities of brain damage, etc.

Besides, what do you mean illusion? Consciousness is not 'fake'.

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

#186

I look at consciousness fairly oddly: I believe consciousness is an emergent property of a complex system; it is simply the nature of the universe that complex systems exhibit consciousness. I'm defining "complex system" as any system whose outputs/results affect the inputs/possible states. If I think something, the possibility space for my next thought is dependent upon my previous thought, and so on. I think artifi…

I agree with this. I think consciousness "happens" when you cross a certain complexity threshold. For argument's sake let's say this happens around 100 billion interconnections. Cross this threshold and consciouness "bursts" into being.

What is consciousness? Well, for me a big part of it is the "movie screen" of my vision. Consciousness is sort of like this movie I can watch, with the understanding that the hands that go into the field of vision are my own- "I" can control them and my body's position in the field. If I want the field to change, I can make the movie look somewhere else. My consciousness also includes the full mapping of the body, including its pain and pleasure states, temperature, hunger, etc etc.

Language is a large part of consciousness, in particular, English. Integrating language into my consciousness was pretty catastrophic- it was like formatting my conscsiouness with a new files system. Apparently it erased all memories previous to that because I can't remember anything earlier than that. English both enables and limits the scope of what I can think. It has a lot of ambiguities and is only moderately good at feelings, and emotions. But hey, it has tenses which vaguely relate to this sensation of passing time that is relevant to my consciousness and a significant portion of reality can successfully be communicated to me by any other consciousness running the Englihs module. If I wanted to be more precise I suppose I could convery my consciousness to LOGLAN or some other language built on predicate calculus rather than germanic and latin grammar base.

In addition to all this, my consciousness stores a lot of memories, skills, ideas, and memes. I have models for basic mathematical concepts, as well as skill sets such as how to operate a motor vehicle. I also have prejudices and preferences. My consciousness is limited by this- if I were not familiar with certain philosophical memes, such as "social contracts", my consciousness would not be able to understand advantages of a national healthcare plan.

Emotions are also part of my consciousness. There is happiness, a "feeling" of well-being when dopmanine, electricity, magnetism, radio waves, and more are flowing rather well. I am likely to be happy when the majority of my body and psyche's needs are met and I am pleasantly engaged and using enough, but not too much, of my energy bandwidth. Anger is a territorial response I would feel in my consciousness when I feel my phsyical or psychological territories are being threatened- it is a territory defense response. Sadness is a tension I feel when there is cognitive dissonance between an idealized vision I have of how things should be. (Tears of sadness if things are worse than I feel they should be, happiness if they are better.) Sadness may also be felt due to various social rejections as my organic ape-mind has a great deal of hardware devoted to social interactions. Pain is experienced when my nerves detect entropy is increasing in my wetware.

As for communicating with other sentiences, this seems inevitable as more species approach and cross Threshold. If humans are at 100 billion+ (or whatever Threshold requires), there are many speces which must be very close. Some of the more advanced marine mammals such as dolphins and whales are apparently very close, let's say 98 billion interconnections, and they even have some of the advanced cerebrocortical structures we think of as giving us our higher civilized thought structures. Elephants, chimps and other greater apes, and maybe dogs, cats, pigs, and some birds seem to be climbing above the 70 billion mark.

If we could figure out how to artificially enhance brains with more interconnections, both human and animal, we could probably "boost" several near-sentient animals across the line by nano-creating more neural interconnections. Energy would flow across the new connections and they would "burst" into their own version of movie-screen of consciousness. It would be fun having other sentiences to talk to. I think we as humans are fairly lonely and could benefit from some non-human perspectives. (Even though human perspectives vary and we don't really appreciate variety even from our fellow different human sentiences.) Still, it would be fun to boost an elephant across the sentience line and then hear their thoughts. It would be fun to know there are other sentient beings out there.

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

#187
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

rabidsnail was probably talking about a "formal definition" not a short description in a dictionary. The key to artificial intelligence is to develop a mathematical model of intelligence/consciousness. Something like "An intelligent being is a 5-tuple ..." With this model we can calculate intelligent responses/development and a Turing machine can calculate. Therefore one can implement an AI on a computer. If there is…

Does one really need a mathematical model in order to claim one has a "definition". Isn't a mathematical model's role to "understand" something (and hence predict)?

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

#188
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human eye, for example, has flaws (that are solved in other similarly evolved eyes) that an engineer laughs at What are those flaws, if you happen to know? I'm curious.

In his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins comments: Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell i…

That's really fascinating--thanks for elaborating.

That said, this isn't, for me, a strong refutation of design. Perhaps the designer's purpose was to create creatures with imperfections such as these, with the higher purpose of communicating something deeper.

Or, is there any way of knowing that we won't some day discover there is a very good reason for this?

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

#189
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…

"And there was some recent article on ycombinator about anaesthesia which I found also interesting."

Do you have a link to the article or remember the title?

Post reply on HN