Re: A dilemma

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
Gruff wrote:
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
Tina Hall wrote:
Sea Wasp <seawasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tina Hall wrote:

What you think you are is entirely up to you. For me, robots
aren't alife, and consciousness can't be programmed. All robots
can ever be is programmed. Even a trillion generations later,
the result of a program that is programmed to adjust is still
just software, no better than my alarm clock.

You and I are just machines of meat.

What you think you are is entirely up to you. I reject the same applying to myself.

Why should meat be Special and able to Think if I can duplicate
the same functions in silicon?

You can't.


This is at base a religious statement. We think using a large collection of neurons. These neurons perform various physical processes which allow them to interact. We can duplicate any physical process we understand (and we're getting to the point that we understand neuronal processes quite well), on silicon, or even in purely mathematical/computational terms. There is therefore no RATIONAL reason to believe that we could not therefore make a duplicate of the brain in silicon, or in a computational model, which could do everything our brain currently does. Such a device or computational model would therefore be able to think, feel, etc., just as does the original.

Whilst I agree with you that Tina's position is essentially a religious one, it's not true to say there's no *rational* reason to believe duplicating the brain's function is impossible "in silicon". Lots of highly rational and respected computer scientists would agree with her, except they have rational arguments to back up their beliefs (even if Tina doesn't).

The arguments I've seen "rational" scientists presenting have in general been smoke-and-mirrors, at best. Penrose and Searle being the most obvious.


The ONLY way to effectively argue against this is to assert that there is some NONphysical -- that is, mystical/magical/supernatural -- component to a thinking human mind, something that we cannot analyze and will never be able to analyze.

Not true. It could be that consciousness requires a physical process that computers are incapable of simulating. There are plenty of things Turings Machines are provably incapable of calculating.

You'd have to show a good reason that the operation of our brains could be reasonably expected to be AFFECTED by such processes. Sure, Penrose can wavy-wavy his hands and say "QUANTUM EFFECT" but there's no real good reason to believe that, or even THEORIZE it, unless you are basically assuming the conclusion.

Yes, I agree that you would if you were trying to *prove* that, but I don't agree that you must to hypothesise (or even less so to believe it).

Note: I PERSONALLY would love to believe that there's something Special About Me that means that no machine will ever match what I am.

But I don't believe it, and see no reason to, any more than I see a reason to believe in God.

Well, isn't that just as religious a statement as Tina's?

Consciousness is one of the least well understood phenomena (in spite of being highly researched - we know a huge amount *about* it). It's not even known whether it's even in the domain of concepts that are human-understandable - it may not be. It may well be possible for a digital computer to simulate a human mind; equally it may be just as impossible for a discrete system to simulate something complex and continuous as it is for the alphabetical letters in this sentence to represent my thoughts. They do a reasonable job of representing me, but no-one would argue the letters forming this sentence that you are reading right now are equivalent to the thoughts I'm thinking, the beliefs I hold, and the sum of my awareness.

Not all things can be digitized and retain their essence.

Gruff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A dilemma
    ... We can duplicate any physical process we understand, on silicon, or even in purely mathematical/computational terms. ... There is therefore no RATIONAL reason to believe that we could not therefore make a duplicate of the brain in silicon, or in a computational model, which could do everything our brain currently does. ... It could be that consciousness requires a physical process that computers are incapable of simulating. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: A dilemma
    ... We can duplicate any physical process we understand, on silicon, or even in purely mathematical/computational terms. ... There is therefore no RATIONAL reason to believe that we could not therefore make a duplicate of the brain in silicon, or in a computational model, which could do everything our brain currently does. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Evil) rules is that the reason for the presentation is that it is a ... physics and chemistry, rules about how you will experience the physical ... causes our consciousness, or if you are unable to do that, could you be ... different neurons are not known to conscious experience. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Evil) rules is that the reason for the presentation is that it is ... physics and chemistry, rules about how you will experience the physical ... causes our consciousness, or if you are unable to do that, could you ... If a robot were to exhibit such behaviours, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... should assume that the robot really is experiencing consciousness, ... the human organism that I experience being appropriately. ... then given our understanding of physics and ... The whole reason we have developed such ...
    (talk.origins)