Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Do you think machine consciousness is possible?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 189 posts

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

#51
post #37

Sounds like you should be going to the Singularity Summit to talk to other people who devote their lives to this issue. Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument details the most obvious probabilistic implications of substrate independence in consciousness: http://www.simulation-argument.com/ The most blatantly obvious indicator that consciousness is substrate-independent: We are DNA-based life forms. DNA stores information…

Thanks for pointing me to this. I had heard of the Singularity University, but not the summit.

Hopefully they have videos posted online of the event...right now two months rent is not available to spend on a conference, very unfortunately.

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

#52
EC: I don't think there's a connection between computation and consciousness. Examine other species for the line of consciousness and the line of computation. Does it count if something computes without intent, like a spider approximating a minimum spanning tree? I'm not sure, but I don't see it yet.

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

#53
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.

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.

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

#54
If you define humans as machines - automated creatures based on input and output, then yes. However there is this thing called qualia (aka subjective experience) that I believe is very real. Machines are not capable of this. All of the AI today is based on complex algorithms with an input output model. There is nothing subjective going on inside.

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

#55

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 that simulation is the key to a concious AI system. If or when we ever succeed in simulating a human mind to a close enough degree of comparability, it is almost a given that the system will be self concious.

There are some problems simulating the human brain that would also have to be addressed even once we can create a working system, such as the AI being a bit of a blank slate, like a infant or a coma patient.

I see the whole process as having to follow a path similar to this:

1. A breakthrough in computing power, something capable of simulating very accurately small areas of space, this means perfectly representing ridiculously complicated chemical reactions and some natural laws.

2. Succeeding in creating a software environment to execute these simulations within.

3. A breakthrough in mapping an existing person, some sort of scan that creates a mathematically provable perfect (or close enough) representation of an area in space. Like some humans mind or possibly their entire body until the subject of the scan can be simplified on the computer. Sort of like taking a photo and then cropping off the body. The above simulation environment may be what is used to provide the simulated inputs and outputs to the head, like the CNS and cardiovascular system. Not to mention the inputs to the eyes and other senses. Sort of like a virtual head in a jar.

4. So far we would have a conscious system, but it would be a copy of a pre-existing being. The next step would to be to somehow, ethically, re-write this being. This would provide a learning challenge with the goal of simplifying and modularising the human brain. Such as hacking language areas, input nerves, the reliance on virtual blood and sustenance and most importantly the memory.

The final product of this important stage is the most simple and easily tweak-able simulation of the human brain that could be used by all researchers and eventually commercial applications. If all these virtual brains are the same or comparable, this isolates the memory as a way to load in or edit what is essentially... people. The creepiest analogy may be the best, they will be like swappable save game files, executing in virtual machines (the hacked brains) that operate within another virtual machine (dare I say it, a super-simple matrix of sorts)

5. We may never reach anywhere near this far along the process due mainly to ethical reasons that cannot be overcome with mere ingenuity. But if we do, the next step is compressing all this down further and further until we have the most simple possible (perhaps provable somehow) implementation of a mind that does not require all the layers of virtualization.

God it's easy to get caught up in this stuff. I hold this prediction on my fingertips in hopes that any developments may blow it away so I can re-evaluate and make a new one.

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

#56
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.

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…

@nwatson - That is a religious belief. It may not be a conventional religious belief, but it is a religious belief. Not to dismiss all religions (although, as an atheist, I tend to), but more to note that the GGP had pointed out that he assumed no religious belief.

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

#57
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 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.

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

#59
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.

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…

Bah....I call bullshit. This is pure anthropomorphism. Humans think they are the shit, but in fact they are only story-telling animals

The poster you are responding did not claim that humans are the shit. They merely pointed out the fact that we have so far proven incapable of proving that we aren`t said shit. Now, you could argue that such a hypothesis could only be falsified by the construction of a machine consciousness. That, however, is orthogonal to the fact that it remains possible that there is in fact some bizarre quality of the universe or the human race that makes machine consciousness impossible. Not a terribly scientific position to take, perhaps, but a perfectly sound philosophical one.

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

#60

If you define humans as machines - automated creatures based on input and output, then yes. However there is this thing called qualia (aka subjective experience) that I believe is very real. Machines are not capable of this. All of the AI today is based on complex algorithms with an input output model. There is nothing subjective going on inside.

For those who say yes to the question then look at Simulated Reality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Post reply on HN